9-9-9 : The APS debate

[zxcvbob]

Coming late to the party:
I like that he has a plan.  Extra points for the specificity of it.

I hate the idea of a national sales tax.  

• Unless you exempt food, it's too regressive.
• Also it's just a way of taxing the funds in Roth IRA's and other pretaxed accounts
• Sales taxes have traditionally been reserved for the states to raise money.
• What's to keep the rate at 9%?  Soon it'll be 28% or more

The corporate rate is too high.  Should be maybe 1% or 2% (not 0).  Corporate income is passed thru to the stockholders and then gets taxed again as income.  Reduce the individual tax rate on dividends by 50% and then maybe you have room to tax corporations (many of which do not distribute dividends)

I like that he still exempts charitable deductions from the income tax.  Part of our problem is that the government has taken over many of the roles of churches and other non-profits for caring for widows and orphans, etc.  Churches need to reclaim that responsibility.

Cain also hasn't proposed slashing the federal.gov enough.  Do away with entire departments and consolidate what little good they actually do.  Ron Paul has proposed something like that.

The plan doesn't need to be "revenue neutral".  We need to pay down our national debt and we need to collect revenue from somewhere to do that.  But mainly we need to cut spending so we stop adding to the debt.

[TommyGunn]

Unless you exempt food, it's too regressive.

What's to keep the rate at 9%?  Soon it'll be 28% or more

The fair tax refunds monies spent on food according to number of dependents.
Cain's plan requires a 2/3 supermajority to raise the tax rate.
After that, it's up to us.  We have to be careful who we vote for.  Right now Obama wants to raise taxes on "millionares & billionares."  Only the composition of the house is what is thwarting this.
Votes count.  
  

[zxcvbob]

Also the first [large $ amount] of income from active-duty servicemen and -women should be exempt.  The rest of us can take up the slack.  Or maybe just their combat pay, but that needs to be substantial.

[MicroBalrog]

The rent, ladies and gentlemen, is too damn high.

This is the definite problem with Mr. Cain's plan.

Now, it will likely improve the economy (for a while) by simplifying tax collection, and so forth, and there are lots of nifty benefits. But the thing is, the reason for America's spending problems (spending problems that are replicated in nearly every Western country) is not that America's tax income is too low. It is not even that Democrats or Republicans are profligate spenders. The difficulty is that government does (tries to do) too many things all at once.

This is why, in fact, why the Paul plan is superior to this plan: it strikes at the root, not at the branches. The root of all our problems, politically, is not the height of taxes, it's the size of government.

[roo_ster]

MB has the most salient point: the #1 problem is not how we collect taxes, but it is spending. 

[Ron]

It should be modified to be the "9-9 plan"

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/20/lawrence-solomon-cain-should-scrap-the-last-leg-of-9-9-9/

[Fitz]

The rent, ladies and gentlemen, is too damn high.

This is the definite problem with Mr. Cain's plan.

Now, it will likely improve the economy (for a while) by simplifying tax collection, and so forth, and there are lots of nifty benefits. But the thing is, the reason for America's spending problems (spending problems that are replicated in nearly every Western country) is not that America's tax income is too low. It is not even that Democrats or Republicans are profligate spenders. The difficulty is that government does (tries to do) too many things all at once.

This is why, in fact, why the Paul plan is superior to this plan: it strikes at the root, not at the branches. The root of all our problems, politically, is not the height of taxes, it's the size of government.

I don't always agree with MB, but when i do, it's this

[Jamisjockey]

In defense of HC, he has spoken that when slashed to 9-9-9, DC must slash spending to match it's income.

I'd be real curious how much revenue 9-9-9 will create.

[MechAg94]

I guess I haven't looked, but does the 9% income tax leg of that plan include getting rid of all FICA, Social Security, and other income taxes that are often left out of income tax cuts?  I would assume so, but I wanted to make sure.


Back on the national defense discussion, I am not sure we know just how good or effective a modern militia could be if the normal citizens were allowed to buy modern military weapons.  That would be a big change over the current norm.  It would be a good change even if it wasn't all it could be.

I still like the idea of a strong core national military.  I don't think it needs to spend a trillion a year, but I don't think that is necessary to maintain a decent size and the best military tech in the world.  We could spend a lot less and still be spending more than anyone else in the world.  It would also be a glaring warning to anyone to think long and hard before attacking us and it would ensure we maintain the ability to go anywhere in the world and crush anyone who does attack us. 

[makattak]

I guess I haven't looked, but does the 9% income tax leg of that plan include getting rid of all FICA, Social Security, and other income taxes that are often left out of income tax cuts?  I would assume so, but I wanted to make sure.

It does.

[Jamisjockey]

I guess I haven't looked, but does the 9% income tax leg of that plan include getting rid of all FICA, Social Security, and other income taxes that are often left out of income tax cuts?  I would assume so, but I wanted to make sure.


Back on the national defense discussion, I am not sure we know just how good or effective a modern militia could be if the normal citizens were allowed to buy modern military weapons.  That would be a big change over the current norm.  It would be a good change even if it wasn't all it could be.

I still like the idea of a strong core national military.  I don't think it needs to spend a trillion a year, but I don't think that is necessary to maintain a decent size and the best military tech in the world.  We could spend a lot less and still be spending more than anyone else in the world.  It would also be a glaring warning to anyone to think long and hard before attacking us and it would ensure we maintain the ability to go anywhere in the world and crush anyone who does attack us. 

A large part of the waste in the system is the continued occupation of countries such as Korea, Japan, and Germany.  Maintaining large bases there is expensive.  We could easily sign treaties with ally countries for uses of facilities when needed (such as hospitals) to support overseas operations, and pay them for their support when needed. 

[makattak]

A large part of the waste in the system is the continued occupation of countries such as Korea, Japan, and Germany.  Maintaining large bases there is expensive.  We could easily sign treaties with ally countries for uses of facilities when needed (such as hospitals) to support overseas operations, and pay them for their support when needed. 

Honestly, we need to support our allies and encourage them to be able to defend themselves. Our bases in Japan, Korea, and Germany have to do with the threats from China, North Korea, and Russia.

Further, we should explain to our allies that it appears our country can no longer be completely relied upon for help because we may at any point elect a moron who will leave them out to dry.

We should still retain the capacity to absolutely demolish any two countries who decide to attack us, though. (And part of that is having the best hardware and the best trained and equipped soldiers.)

[Jamisjockey]

Honestly, we need to support our allies and encourage them to be able to defend themselves. Our bases in Japan, Korea, and Germany have to do with the threats from China, North Korea, and Russia.

Further, we should explain to our allies that it appears our country can no longer be completely relied upon for help because we may at any point elect a moron who will leave them out to dry.

We should still retain the capacity to absolutely demolish any two countries who decide to attack us, though. (And part of that is having the best hardware and the best trained and equipped soldiers.)

That same support can be applied by being prepared to move troops to said nations.  And how about they spend 1/4 of thier budget on defense, insted of us footing the bill?

[makattak]

That same support can be applied by being prepared to move troops to said nations.  And how about they spend 1/4 of thier budget on defense, insted of us footing the bill?

Sure. What part of "we need to support our allies and encourage them to be able to defend themselves" means they aren't paying for it?

I didn't mean we needed to pay for their military, I mean we need to support them as allies not as subsidiaries.

[Jamisjockey]

Sure. What part of "we need to support our allies and encourage them to be able to defend themselves" means they aren't paying for it?

I didn't mean we needed to pay for their military, I mean we need to support them as allies not as subsidiaries.

Ah gotcha. 

[lupinus]

The rent, ladies and gentlemen, is too damn high.

This is the definite problem with Mr. Cain's plan.

Now, it will likely improve the economy (for a while) by simplifying tax collection, and so forth, and there are lots of nifty benefits. But the thing is, the reason for America's spending problems (spending problems that are replicated in nearly every Western country) is not that America's tax income is too low. It is not even that Democrats or Republicans are profligate spenders. The difficulty is that government does (tries to do) too many things all at once.

This is why, in fact, why the Paul plan is superior to this plan: it strikes at the root, not at the branches. The root of all our problems, politically, is not the height of taxes, it's the size of government.

As Jamis so kindly mentioned already, Cains plan includes cutting spending to meet new income levels with new tax plan. Things the federal government has no business is needs to go, excessive regulation needs to go. Cain understands and supports this.

The problem, and even Ron Paul understands this, is that these institutions have gradually been worked into our economy and society over several decades. You can't just come in and get rid of them overnight. They need to go away gradually so that things aren't just throw into disarray and that people/states can build up the support structure themselves as the nanny state is retired. As part of this you need a tax plan that still brings in enough cash to support this while it they are being phased out. This is why 9-9-9 is phase one, fair tax is phase two. 9-9-9 should bring in more cash than just a sale tax, and is a more gradual transition than overnight going strait into a national sales tax/fair tax.

I guess I haven't looked, but does the 9% income tax leg of that plan include getting rid of all FICA, Social Security, and other income taxes that are often left out of income tax cuts?

Yes. All taxes currently deducted from income are replaced with the 9% flat income tax portion of the plan.

[wmenorr67]

It is a perfect plan?  No but it is a plan and it is better than any other has come up with.  I like the thought but won't see the light of day.  Better chance of National Carry coming to pass first.

[MicroBalrog]

The problem, and even Ron Paul understands this, is that these institutions have gradually been worked into our economy and society over several decades. You can't just come in and get rid of them overnight. They need to go away gradually so that things aren't just throw into disarray and that people/states can build up the support structure themselves as the nanny state is retired.

On the contrary, 'gradually phase it out over a period of 20 years' is a politician's slang for 'never'.

There is only one cure for the evils which newly acquired freedom produces -- and that cure is freedom. When a prisoner leaves his cell, he cannot bear the light of day; -- he is unable to discriminate colors, or recognize faces. But the remedy is not to remand him into his dungeon, but to accustom him to the rays of the sun. The blaze of truth and liberty may at first dazzle and bewilder nations which have become half blind in the house of bondage. But let them gaze on, and they will soon be able to bear it. In a few years men learn to reason. The extreme violence of opinion subsides. Hostile theories correct each other. The scattered elements of truth cease to conflict, and begin to coalesce. And at length a system of justice and order is educed out of the chaos.

[lupinus]

On the contrary, 'gradually phase it out over a period of 20 years' is a politician's slang for 'never'.

There is only one cure for the evils which newly acquired freedom produces -- and that cure is freedom. When a prisoner leaves his cell, he cannot bear the light of day; -- he is unable to discriminate colors, or recognize faces. But the remedy is not to remand him into his dungeon, but to accustom him to the rays of the sun. The blaze of truth and liberty may at first dazzle and bewilder nations which have become half blind in the house of bondage. But let them gaze on, and they will soon be able to bear it. In a few years men learn to reason. The extreme violence of opinion subsides. Hostile theories correct each other. The scattered elements of truth cease to conflict, and begin to coalesce. And at length a system of justice and order is educed out of the chaos.

Who said anything about 20 years? You are aware even Ron Paul, as said in the debate before last, understands that nanny state programs need to be phased out and not just shut down over night right?

Drastic cuts can, and need to, happen now. But totally reversing the ship takes time.

[Jamisjockey]

And he panders to the entitlement class.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/herman-cain-tweaks-999-plan-to-include-opportunity-zones-for-lower-income-americans/2011/10/21/gIQAfBlh3L_story.html
 

[MicroBalrog]

This is an excellent form of pandering to the entitlement class.

Creating opportunity zones where the government suspends economic regulations, making it possible for poor people to get jobs or start their own businesses,  while appealing for the poor to vote for you? Excellent.

Demonstrating by experiment that overregulation delays progress? (No doubt later to lead to an expansion of the opportunity zones). Pander away, I say.

Drastic cuts can, and need to, happen now. But totally reversing the ship takes time.

REversing the ship takes time, but to reverse it in a meaningful time span you need a man that has the spine to try to do it as fast as he can - to yank on the stick with all his might.

[Jamisjockey]

This is an excellent form of pandering to the entitlement class.

Creating opportunity zones where the government suspends economic regulations, making it possible for poor people to get jobs or start their own businesses,  while appealing for the poor to vote for you? Excellent.

Demonstrating by experiment that overregulation delays progress? (No doubt later to lead to an expansion of the opportunity zones). Pander away, I say.

REversing the ship takes time, but to reverse it in a meaningful time span you need a man that has the spine to try to do it as fast as he can - to yank on the stick with all his might.

Most of these "opportunity zones" are not places the Federal government has killed, but intrusive state and city governments.  Detroit is dead because of the death of the American car makers at the hands of the Unions.  Artificially inflating the value of a product or locale over another is interferring in the market just as much as obstructive regulations.  Fail at the highest level.

[MicroBalrog]

Is he suggesting we should give these people taxpayer money? No? Then what is the issue?

[Jamisjockey]

Is he suggesting we should give these people taxpayer money? No? Then what is the issue?

Actually, yes.  They receive benefits from the system without paying into the system.  That IS giving them taxpayer money.

[MicroBalrog]

Actually, yes.  They receive benefits from the system without paying into the system.  That IS giving them taxpayer money.

On this logic any form of government activity that benefits people who don't pay income taxes is a form of welfare.