Oh really? And what grade math did you finish in school?

 

 

Central to the debate is that middle- and lower-income Americans spend almost all of their income, meaning the sales tax would constitute a higher percentage of their income than it would for wealthier Americans whose income exceeds their living expenses. The richest Americans, meanwhile, would see a big decline in their income-tax rate.

 

Cain's plan is just another way of saying "tax cuts for the rich".

Clever play on words with the Godfather reference, I have to give you that.  The Laffer curve is sort of like extortion I guess but Laffer is certainly not the originator of supply side economics, WAIT you called him the "Godfather", is Herman Cain getting a royalty for this or something?

 

Origin of the term "Laffer Curve"

The term "Laffer curve" was reportedly coined by Jude Wanniski (a writer for The Wall Street Journal) after a 1974 afternoon meeting between Laffer, Wanniski, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy press secretary Grace-Marie Arnett.^[1] In this meeting, Laffer, arguing against President Gerald Ford's tax increase, reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate the concept.^[6] Cheney did not buy the idea immediately, but it caught the imaginations of those present.^[7] Laffer professes no recollection of this napkin, but writes: "I used the so-called Laffer Curve all the time in my classes and with anyone else who would listen to me."^[1]

Laffer himself does not claim to have invented the concept, attributing it to 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun and, more recently, to John Maynard Keynes.^[1]

Rockhead, the title of the article was:

Godfather of Supply-Side Economics Supports Cain's '9-9-9' Plan

 

Talk to Tony Lee about it.

 

As for the Laffer curve, it's in every economics class.  Look it up.

Oh really? And what grade math did you finish in school?

 

Calculus at UNA. How about you?

 

Passing calculus doesn't make you smart.

So having passed calculus, I assume then you can read. Have you ever read a little thing called the Constitution? I do believe the Constitution states that the government cannot tax us twice on the same thing.

 Let's see, tax us 9% on our income, thats one, tax us 9% when we spend that income, that's two.

WELL, I guess the period of "civility" and refraining from "juvenile" name tagging has ended.

MAN, that didn't last long!

I COULD be above it all and not do one right back at you, I COULD, but what the heck.

WELCOME BACK WICKED RIGHT WING WITCH OF WATERLOO, how is your supply of medication these days?????????????????????????

Posting one liners without bringing anything to the table doesn't either.

The principle of the laffer curve was well known, if not quantified, for centuries -- that at a certain point of taxation as taxes rise, revenue decreases.  About 15 times, I believe, I've posted instances of tax reductions with subsequent revenue increases and vica  versa.

 

For most people, the 9 percent deduction would result in more take home pay, even for those who pay no income tax.  Besides the 7.65 percent deducted for social security and medicare, the employer sends in an equal amount.  If the tax law qualfied that as income, as well, the employer would simply raise the employee's pay by 7.65 percent.  Then, the employee would have the 7.65% usually deducted included in his take home pay, plus the 7.65% from the employer's share.  The 9% applied to the 107.65% total pay would be about 9.69%, leaving the employee with about a 5.6% increase.

 

Employers would benefit by no longer having to account for medicare and social security. 

 

The 9 percent consumption tax captures income from the off the books economy --drugs, prostitution, work for cash only, etc.

 

As far as taxed twice, sorry, but that is already being done.  For instance, we pay federal tax on gasoline, from income which was already taxed. 

Not a very good comeback extra. How many times do you think we're taxed now on the same thing? I'll give you a hint, it's more than two. I like the 9-9-9 plan. Why should 50% of the people not pay any federal tax? I've paid every year since 1975. To those with initiative and luck why should they pay more than me? One thing I do agree with Obama on. Everyone should pay their fair share.

Extra,

The Consitution may say that, BUT currently many proposals want to do just that.  I hear all this talk about taxing corporations, yet the money is distributed to individuals, where it is taxed.  They invest it, taxed again.  If they make money on it, it is taxed.  Buy a house, it is taxed.  Sell the house, and now they want you to pay more taxes oon your investment.  We are taxed several times on the same dollar as it is now.

Cain proposal does not take any more burden on one class than the other IF you have a standard deduction to include the basic cost of living for a family or individual.

One problem I do have with the 999 plan is all capital gains are not taxed.  I have little problem with not taxing dividends -- they are paid after corporate taxes are paid (9 percent under Cain's plan).  And, represent a small portion of capital gains.  However, I believe everyone should pay.  Investor's, including the wealthy, who make a profit from sale of shares at a price beyond which they paid, should be taxed at the same 9 percent.  That 9 percent is significantly less than what is paid now. 

 

Warren Buffet would only pay about $9,000 annually under Cain's plan, as his salary is $100,000, but his real wealth is from capital gains when stock is sold at a profit.   

I asked Edward Kleinbard, a tax law professor at the University of Southern California, to walk me through the tax burden for a typical family of four with an income of $50,000 in the current system and under Herman Cain’s plan. Before we get to the details, here’s the bottom line: Cain’s plan would increase the family’s tax bill by thousands of dollars.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...gIQAGKYzhL_blog.html

 

And that leaves us with simple subtraction. $13,500 - $8,416 = $5,084. That’s how much more a family of four with $50,000 in income and a very simple tax return would pay under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.

 

There is  pretty well-known pundit among Conservatives who also has spoken out against Cain't poorly disguised tax cut for the rich. Hint: his initials are GN and he doesn't like tax increases.

That analysis is bogus. $50,000 salary, plus, if the employer's portion of FICA is paid to the employee would result in a total salary of $53,825.  Appying the 9 percent against that salary yields $4,844 paid in total on income.  Assuming the family spent the entire rest of their income on items covered by the consumption tax ($53,825 less $4,844 = $48,981 X 9%) would be $4,408. The income tax ($4,844 plus the consumption tax $4,408) would be $9,252 total tax paid.  If, the family saves for college, retirement, buys a used car, etc, the tax would be significantly less.  Probably closer to the $8,416 they originally paid.  Remember its supposed to be near revenue neutral for the middle class and below. 

I haven't studied Cain's tax plan at all but would the 9% national sales tax be in addition to already levied local sales taxes? tia.

Yes, and the tax would only apply to "new" products. This would indeed be a job killer as it would push more and more people to buying second hand products.

There are only so many things that may be practically sold second hand -- used cars being the most prevalent.  After that, boats, clothing, electronics and items at estate sales.  Which, pretty much covers the market as it exists.  Things wear out and need to be replaced, eventually, by new things.

What you all keep forgetting is that it'll never happen. Whether it is a good idea or not, do you REALLY think this could pass both houses of Congress? I mean, love him or hate him, Obama has had some pretty good ideas, and just about every one of them was stiffled by gridlock. What makes you think it'll be any different with Cain?

I doubt that Cain meant that his proposal would be the finished product; it must pass though the legislative process before he could sign it. I have seen in the news that the 9-9-9 plan is just a transitional step in replacing the present system with the Fair Tax. If the 9% sales tax includes the "prebate" rebate  in the Fair Tax for basic neccesities, the pain would be minimal from the sales tax for the frugal. In fact for the extremely thrifty shopper, do-it-yourselfer, and gardener, the "prebate" could possibly more than offset the sales taxes.

This was my impression as well.  As system, that although it is unfinished, it is far closer to a Fair Tax plan, that captures monies currently lost in cash only transaction.  It also would capture capital gains, albeit at 9%, which I know the libs will B & M about, but it certainly is much fairer than the 50% that some want to see in place.

The 9-9-9 plan does not punish nor inhibit productivity, and if implemented correctly would not hurt the middle class, the lower class, nor the u pper middle class.

Huh, I guess I've been asleep the last 3 years. Can you list all those good ideas for me.

Both 999 and the Fair Tax reward thrift and saving while capturing what is now the underground economy -- drugs, prostitution, working off the books, etc.

How does it reward saving, other than tax avoidance. I've been saving for years, the bank don't opay me nothing for my money. As long as the FED has rates at 0% there will be no savings in this country.

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

HI Ferrill!

You know I think he has had a lot of good ideas. And I know you don't think he has had any. But that's beside the point. One of the things Obama wanted to do was COMPROMISE with the other side, but they won't compromise at all. Do you really think it'll be any different with Cain in office?

If you saved money for years at 0% you're a lot better off than the ones that saved for years in 401k's.

Compromise is what's gotten us into this mess. There's very very little difference in a Republican and a Democrat. They talk different when they are campaigning but once in office they're almost identical. I like Cain, but you're right with all the career politicians in office he would have a hard time getting much done. Personally I have no problem with Obama. I disagree with his policies but as a president he doesn't have a clue how to run a country.

Oh No, I respectfully disagree.  When the POTUS stands up and tells the Congress that "we won, get over it" and expects them to cowdown to whatever he wants, that is not compromise.  After that, he met a full on resistance, and he deserved it.  Not one of his proposals thus far has stood up to scrutiny by economists that they would help the economy or the nation regain its footing.  Even his supporters are now saying that he has done too much compromising, and to be honest he has not even reached over the aisle.  I will also say that the Republicans have done little in the way of compromise either, but they could not have accomplised any of the blcoking of his proposals without help from some Democrats, and they are only serving their constituents.

 

" and they are only serving their constituents."

 

You don't REALLY believe that, do you? They are serving THEMSELVES!

99% of them are only serving themsleves, and you are absolutely correct.  However, I think the majority of them do at times (especially when an election is imminent) will listen to the majority, and in this case I think there has been a very vocal conservative backlash to the things that are bing pushed down our throats.

In the mid 1800's the government tried to exert their muscle to all parts of the country, and push thru for things, some of which were good and some of which were bad and the result was a Civil War that practically devastated this country.  The same thing is occurrring today, however I think we are much more on an equal footing than we were 175 years ago, and things might not turn out like the Fedearl government wishes.  People are getting angry at the continued demands and taxation from a government that does not listen to them, and has the interests of foreign government in their grasps while ignoring the pleas of their own people.

 

Oh yeah, actually OBAMA never said, "We won, get over it", it was his SUPPORTERS who said that. He was talking about reaching across the aisle and compromising before he was ever even elected. His acceptance speech was full of talk about remembering that we are all Americans, and it's time we put partisan politics aside and work for the good of our country, and not our party.

 

Yeah, as a Democrat, it really ticks me off that he kept TRYING to compromise, long after it became clear to us all that the Repubs were doing all they could to fulfill their promise to see his presidency fail. Of course, the Repubs don't CARE that a presidency failing means America fails. They don't care about the PEOPLE at all. They just care about being re-elected.

Obama to GOP: 'I won'

B, that's not the same thing at all. He never said, "Get over it." As a matter of fact, here is the story you cited, put into context.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po.../01/i-won-president/

 

In an hour-long private meeting with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders this morning on the economic stimulus package, President Barack Obama stressed the urgency of getting the $825 billion stimulus plan passed quickly for the good of the country, and mentioned the political stakes for both parties.

According to a source present at the meeting, President Obama said, "Look, we are all political animals here, If we don’t do this, we may lose seats. I may not be re-elected. But none of that’s going to matter if we don’t pass this because the economy will be in a crisis and the American people will be hurting."

The meeting was attended by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate Majority Whip **** Durbin, D-Ill., Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn D-SC, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va.

Vice President Joe Biden, National Economic Council director Larry Summers, Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel were also in attendance.

Despite being the lowest person on the totem pole in attendance, sources say the ideas presented by Cantor — who brought handouts to the meeting — provided some of the day’s most engaging moments.

House Republicans have been complaining about not being consulted, and as Cantor explained the details of some of the ideas he and his GOP colleagues would like to see in the package, President Obama read the one-pager and told him, "Eric, I don’t see anything crazy in here."

Among some of the things Republicans requested: tax deductions for some small businesses, making unemployment benefits tax free and a provision that would let businesses losing money carry the losses over to pay fewer taxes in a different fiscal year.

Mr. Obama did voice opinion on some differences on the issue of whether the lowest individual tax rates should be cut from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 5 percent.

As the president, he had told Kyl after the Arizonan raised objections to the notion of a tax credit for people who don’t pay income taxes, Obama told Cantor this morning that "on some of these issues we’re just going to have ideological differences."

The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

_____________________________________________________________________________

Sure sounds to me like he was willing to compromise on some things.

I got out of the market  2007.

You don't max out your credit card, you don't pay the 9% sales tax.  The Fed rates can't last.

Actually, I find several stocks that give good returns, plus state and munie bonds (tax free) and silver. 

***

 

Gotta agree with you on that, Interventor.  Cain's plan would enormously favor hedge fund managers and other investors whose income is often  at or near 100% in capital gains. Many of these people are the wealthiest people in the world.  Their taxes would consist solely of the sales tax element of Cain's plan and the part that funds retirement, whatever he calls that.  Together, these two taxes would be trivial for the multimillionaires and billionaires who would hugely benefit from the Cain madness.

The 9-9-9 plan would not tax "used goods."  look for thrift stores to prosper under such a tax and also expect the cost of those used goods to rise as demand increases.  Thus, poor folks who shop at thrift stores would find their costs for clothing and other goods going up.  No breaks for the low-income folks under 9-9-9.  

 

Cain will soon be smoked out on his 9-9-9 mantra and then we sill get another GOP flavor of the month candidate.