• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cain's 9/9/9 Plan: Pros and Cons

Sensibility said:
Do you mean the 47% of middle-income people who aren't paying any income taxes right now?

I doubt they'd be in the poor house. They might have to get some skin in the game.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but 20% would be too much.

Again, how are you defining loopholes? Are you talking about deductions?
 
Redress said:
It would be 3600, not 1800. 1800 in direct tax, 1800 in sales tax. That is 64 a week, out of a 400 check, which is pretty significant.
Click to expand...

Where do you get the $1,800 in sales taxes? If services, food, rent, etc. are excluded from the sales tax, a person making 20 grand a year isn't going to pay $1,800 in sales taxes.

Currently, a $400 check gets clipped for more than $64, so ultimately, it would be a tax break.
 
If under the 9-9-9 plan, wouldn't the richer be able to hire more, since their fear of regulations would be offset by more money? If only Grover Norquist could make a promise-to-hire pledge.
 
Yes, I was mostly thinking about the deductions for children, mortgage interest, etc.
 
votewho2012 said:
If under the 9-9-9 plan, wouldn't the richer be able to hire more, since their fear of regulations would be offset by more money? If only Grover Norquist could make a promise-to-hire pledge.
Click to expand...

well, if we wanted to get real nasty, we could always raise the corporate tax rate by 10% for every 1% of a company's workforce that is outsourced....
 
American said:
And you need a 60 inch monitor to read the graph, but it's probably as useful as the text.
Click to expand...

Bank_failures_Inequality.png


There's the full sized graph.
 
needs to be bigger
 
apdst said:
Where do you get the $1,800 in sales taxes? If services, food, rent, etc. are excluded from the sales tax, a person making 20 grand a year isn't going to pay $1,800 in sales taxes.

Currently, a $400 check gets clipped for more than $64, so ultimately, it would be a tax break.
Click to expand...

I bolded the part where you made the incorrect assumption.
 
votewho2012 said:
If under the 9-9-9 plan, wouldn't the richer be able to hire more, since their fear of regulations would be offset by more money? If only Grover Norquist could make a promise-to-hire pledge.
Click to expand...

People and businesses hire more when they need more labor. They do not do so because they just feel like spending money.
 
This means that the 47% of tax filers who now pay no federal income taxes will pay 9% on their total income. And elimination of the payroll tax won’t even help half of them because the earned income tax credit, which Mr. Cain would abolish, offsets both their income tax liability and their payroll tax payment as well.
Click to expand...

Lets be fair here. While I know this was quoted from another source, surely you aren't suggesting that the 999 plan would "raise taxes" on impoverished people because it would eliminate the earned income tax credit. Currently people who receive the income tax credit have worked some (but not much) during the tax year. Because their incomes are low, they are (probably always) entitled to a full refund of their federal tax payroll witholdings. The earned income credit, while paid along with that tax refund, is in addition to it. For instance, a person with a qualifying child who meet the requirements for that credit might pay in 400 in payroll taxes, and get a check from the IRS for 700. This is not a tax. This is a subsidy. Maybe if we are talking about total spendable dollars per year, the earned income credit taxpayer may end up with less under the 999 plan, but it doesn't mean he/she was taxed more.

This would increase their cost of living by 9% while, at the same time, the poor would pay income taxes.
Click to expand...

This increase in cost of living would not be 9 percent. The embedded taxes in prices of products would be reduced. While the tax rate might be higher, the total dollar amounts spent would be lower, resulting in a LOWER cost of living.

Also, of course this is a segue to the fair tax. That's another great thing about it. :) What could be fairer than determining for yourself how much taxes you pay based on how much you CHOOSE to spend? BTW the fair tax program does exclude necessities such as food and shelter.
 
Last edited:
votewho2012 said:
If under the 9-9-9 plan, wouldn't the richer be able to hire more, since their fear of regulations would be offset by more money? If only Grover Norquist could make a promise-to-hire pledge.
Click to expand...

trash that theory.

just like the theory that if companies had more from lower taxes they could take that money they could hire more. They are sitting on piles of cash now and not hiring any new workers. So much for theory.

Right wing theory is not worth a bag of manure... at least that can help the garden.
 
haymarket said:
trash that theory.

just like the theory that if companies had more from lower taxes they could take that money they could hire more. They are sitting on piles of cash now and not hiring any new workers. So much for theory.

Right wing theory is not worth a bag of manure... at least that can help the garden.
Click to expand...

current high cash reserves for corporations have nothing to do with taxes... it has everything to do with an unstable economy.

corporate "rainy day" funds are at a high... but hiring won't happen quite yet.... they won't let loose with that cash until the economy stabilizes.
even when it stabilizes, I don't see a massive hiring spree in the near term... i'd look for a period of mergers and acquisitions to occur before hiring gets started again.
 
votewho2012 said:
If under the 9-9-9 plan, wouldn't the richer be able to hire more, since their fear of regulations would be offset by more money? If only Grover Norquist could make a promise-to-hire pledge.
Click to expand...

The reason there's not hiring has to do with demand. People with less money buy less stuff, therefore companies make less stuff and require fewer workers to make it.

A national sales tax will make the problem of people not buying stuff even worse. It's a bullet train to a worse recession because of unintended consequences.
 
Thrilla said:
current high cash reserves for corporations have nothing to do with taxes... it has everything to do with an unstable economy.

corporate "rainy day" funds are at a high... but hiring won't happen quite yet.... they won't let loose with that cash until the economy stabilizes.
even when it stabilizes, I don't see a massive hiring spree in the near term... i'd look for a period of mergers and acquisitions to occur before hiring gets started again.
Click to expand...

With my job here in Michigan at the state legislature, I went to a workshop today presented by a Dr. Long from Michigan State University. He is a conservative republican. He made the same claim. I questioned it saying that business would not spend money in an era of uncertainty is a lot of crap. News bulletin for the right and corporate sycophants: nothing has EVER been certain. Tomorrow or the events of tomorrow are unknown to all. Excuses are just that - excuses.

Corporations simply believe they can get a better deal from a Republican govt in 15 months so they spend as little as possible to keep record profits coming in. And if you think that changes with a Republican president - you are fooling yourself.
 
haymarket said:
trash that theory.

just like the theory that if companies had more from lower taxes they could take that money they could hire more. They are sitting on piles of cash now and not hiring any new workers. So much for theory.

Right wing theory is not worth a bag of manure... at least that can help the garden.
Click to expand...

It's not a theory. It's a fact, that if companies make money, they expand their operations. Another fact, is that gargantuous, out of control government spending will not improve the economy, nor create jobs.

Economically speaking, the more money the private sector has in it's pocket, the better off the country will be.
 
haymarket said:
With my job here in Michigan at the state legislature, I went to a workshop today presented by a Dr. Long from Michigan State University. He is a conservative republican. He made the same claim. I questioned it saying that business would not spend money in an era of uncertainty is a lot of crap. News bulletin for the right and corporate sycophants: nothing has EVER been certain. Tomorrow or the events of tomorrow are unknown to all. Excuses are just that - excuses.
Click to expand...

Imagine that you're a business owner, that has 25 employees. Based on what you know, right now, how much will it cost you to keep those people on the payroll, once Obamacare is fully implemented. Go ahead, give us a number.

How much more will the cost of doing business be, with the current regime implementing regulation upon regulation?

What will the cost of your energy consumption, after even more costly regulations are placed on the energy industry?

That's the kind of uncertainly we're talking about.

Corporations simply believe they can get a better deal from a Republican govt in 15 months so they spend as little as possible to keep record profits coming in. And if you think that changes with a Republican president - you are fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

You make yourself look foolish, by suggesting that it's some kind of conspiracy by private corporations, especially since you work for the government.
 
haymarket said:
With my job here in Michigan at the state legislature, I went to a workshop today presented by a Dr. Long from Michigan State University. He is a conservative republican. He made the same claim. I questioned it saying that business would not spend money in an era of uncertainty is a lot of crap. News bulletin for the right and corporate sycophants: nothing has EVER been certain. Tomorrow or the events of tomorrow are unknown to all. Excuses are just that - excuses.

Corporations simply believe they can get a better deal from a Republican govt in 15 months so they spend as little as possible to keep record profits coming in. And if you think that changes with a Republican president - you are fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

well, it's your right to reject the idea that businesses operate the same in stable and unstable times... but it's not an opinion i would hang my hat on... as a matter of fact, Its an opinion I reject outright.

it's been widely reported and studied as to if and why businesses are "hoarding money" ( cash reserves)... outside of political lefties, there is wide agreement that the unstable nature of the economy is the primary factor.
 
apdst said:
Imagine that you're a business owner, that has 25 employees. Based on what you know, right now, how much will it cost you to keep those people on the payroll, once Obamacare is fully implemented. Go ahead, give us a number.

How much more will the cost of doing business be, with the current regime implementing regulation upon regulation?

What will the cost of your energy consumption, after even more costly regulations are placed on the energy industry?

That's the kind of uncertainly we're talking about.



You make yourself look foolish, by suggesting that it's some kind of conspiracy by private corporations, especially since you work for the government.
Click to expand...

I am a business owner with 35 employees in a regulated service industry. The only thing I worry about is my clients having enough money to afford my services (demand). The fact that one requires a license to compete in this business provides assurance to my customers by maintaining standards of practice. It also enhances my business value by creating a bit of a barrier to entry. Taxes and Obama care do not worry me.... having a customer base that is confident that tomorrow will be a better day (so its safe to spend today) is my only concern.
 
Can you believe the vile names the left would have come up with if Cains plan would have been the 666 plan? Holy crap!
 
votewho2012 said:
If under the 9-9-9 plan, wouldn't the richer be able to hire more, since their fear of regulations would be offset by more money? If only Grover Norquist could make a promise-to-hire pledge.
Click to expand...

getting to keep more cash on hand doesn't necessarily = more hiring.
 
Last edited:
dontworrybehappy said:
Can you believe the vile names the left would have come up with if Cains plan would have been the 666 plan? Holy crap!
Click to expand...

I'm sure Michele Bachmann could help out with the naming just fine. And if you are dumb enough to come up with something like a "666 plan," you're pretty much asking to be ridiculed.
 
upsideguy said:
I am a business owner with 35 employees in a regulated service industry. The only thing I worry about is my clients having enough money to afford my services (demand). The fact that one requires a license to compete in this business provides assurance to my customers by maintaining standards of practice. It also enhances my business value by creating a bit of a barrier to entry. Taxes and Obama care do not worry me.... having a customer base that is confident that tomorrow will be a better day (so its safe to spend today) is my only concern.
Click to expand...

that's your only concern?.. .seriously?

you aren't planning for different economic environments?.. you aren't concerned with your expenses?.. you are concerned with regulatory compliance?
you don't concern yourself with growth strategies?... you don't concern yourself with upcoming regulation that will fiscally impact your business?

you are sitting here telling us that your ONLY concern is the one concern that is completely out of your realm of influence.

I don't believe you are being forthright with us.
 
Thrilla said:
current high cash reserves for corporations have nothing to do with taxes... it has everything to do with an unstable economy.

corporate "rainy day" funds are at a high... but hiring won't happen quite yet.... they won't let loose with that cash until the economy stabilizes.
even when it stabilizes, I don't see a massive hiring spree in the near term... i'd look for a period of mergers and acquisitions to occur before hiring gets started again.
Click to expand...
/facepalm

Businesses don't expand their businesses unless there is demand for their products and/or services. If you were in the business of manufacturing/selling widgets you would be crazy to expand your business if there was no demand for widgets. If the demand for widgets were high, you would be crazy not hiring the personnel required to satisfy that demand. edit: that's how capitalism works.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
current high cash reserves for corporations have nothing to do with taxes... it has everything to do with an unstable economy.

corporate "rainy day" funds are at a high... but hiring won't happen quite yet.... they won't let loose with that cash until the economy stabilizes.
even when it stabilizes, I don't see a massive hiring spree in the near term... i'd look for a period of mergers and acquisitions to occur before hiring gets started again.
Click to expand...
Which proves that lowering corporate taxes won't create a single job now.

pbrauer said:
/facepalm

Businesses don't expand their businesses unless there is demand for their products and/or services. If you were in the business of manufacturing/selling widgets you would be crazy to expand your business if there was no demand for widgets. If the demand for widgets were high, you would be crazy not hiring the personnel required to satisfy that demand. edit: that's how capitalism works.
Click to expand...
The problem is indeed demand.
Demand by definition being not enough Middle/Lower earners with enough money. (also what a recession is) They're still deleveraging.
It's THOSE people we need to get solvent and buying again.
So let's tax them more with 9/9/9 and turn this recession into a Depression.
Many will go from -0- tax to several thousand dollars. Yeah that'll be good.
 
pbrauer said:
/facepalm

Businesses don't expand their businesses unless there is demand for their products and/or services. If you were in the business of manufacturing/selling widgets you would be crazy to expand your business if there was no demand for widgets. If the demand for widgets were high, you would be crazy not hiring the personnel required to satisfy that demand. edit: that's how capitalism works.
Click to expand...

if you are meeting demand now, and making a profit... what do you do with the money in this economy?

if you were smart, you sock a portion of it away so you can ensure you keep the doors open and keep your employees and expenses paid.
if you own a business and aren't planning for a potential worsening of the economy , in this day in age, then you quite simply don't belong in business, 'cuz you're an idiot.
it's imperative to plan for rainy days.. cash reserves are part of that planning.

we've increased our cash reserves to 3 times what we normally keep... just in case.
.. and we've also increase our workforce to 125 (102 domestic ) employees... but i don't foresee much more hiring unless business picks up... we meet demand fine right now.
I have the money to hire, but i won't.. primarily because I run a business, not a welfare agency.
until there is some stabilization and more sunny days, our cash reserves will grow until we deem it time to diversify

I know how capitalism works.. and more importantly, I know how it's supposed to work unlike those yahoos in DC.
I'm not to big to fail, i have no choice but to be fiscally sound in my planning and decisions.. again, unlike those yahoos in DC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom