Cain tries to explain his tax plan on Meet The Press

I would love to see someone explain how todays tax system is better or makes more sense than Cain's proposal. What do you think buttercup?

i saw the interview and understood it completely.  As he stated, there will be state sales tax and federal sales tax, both independent of each other.  What part didn't you understand! Shall I speak slower and use a limited vocabulary!

 

Just as some states like Florida and Tennessee have no income tax, but the residents pay a federal income tax; in states like New Hampshire, with no state sales tax, the residents will pay the federal sales tax. 

 

Too complicated for you to comprehend!   

 Asking legitimate questions that don't receive intelligible responses is "muddying the water?"

 

From the Meet The Press transcript:

 

MR. GREGORY: The other defect in the plan comes from fellow conservatives who say, “You’ve got some problems here.” … “The real political defect,” the Journal writes, “of the Cain plan is that it imposes a new national sales tax while maintaining the income tax. … A 9 percent rate when combined with state and local levies would mean a tax on goods of 17 percent or more in many places. The cries for exemptions would be great.”

 

MR. CAIN: Don’t combine it with state taxes. This doesn’t address state taxes. If you add them together, yes, you’ll get that number. This is a replacement structure. These are replacement taxes. They’re not on top of anything.

 

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

 

MR. CAIN: We replace capital gains tax. We replace the payroll tax. We replace corporate income tax, replace personal income tax, and replace the death tax. It is a replacement tax structure.

 

MR. GREGORY: But where do state taxes go? You’re saying they’re going to be repealed?

 

MR. CAIN: If you–with the current structure, you have state taxes, right? So with this new structure, you’re still going to have taxes–state taxes. That is muddying the water.

 

MR. GREGORY: How so?

 

MR. CAIN: Because today, under the current tax code, state taxes are there if they have it. If they don’t have a state taxes, they don’t have it. It has nothing to do with this replacement structure for the federal tax code.

 

MR. GREGORY: But that doesn’t make any sense to me. If I’m already paying state taxes, and I have a new Cain administration national sales tax, I’ve got more state taxes.

 

MR. CAIN: No you don’t.

 

MR. GREGORY: How so?

 

MR. CAIN: David, David.

 

MR. GREGORY: You’re not saying they’re going away.

 

MR. CAIN: Your state taxes are the same. Your federal taxes, in most cases, are going to go down. That’s muddying the water.

 

MR. GREGORY: The Wall Street Journal says you have one on top of the other. There’s a combined levy.

 

MR. CAIN: That is not correct, David.

 

MR. GREGORY: Right.

 

MR. CAIN: Let’s try this one more time. State taxes are there today. The current tax code is a 10 million word mess. You have probably 100–you have thousands of loopholes and tricks and what I call “sneak attaxes” in the current code. State taxes today, whatever they are, zero or some number, has nothing to do with replacing the tax code. Nothing.

============================================================================

 

Getting defensive there, interventor.

 

So how will Alabamians pay less?  He somehow has the ability to repeal our state taxes?  Like that will happen!  Fail!

 

FINALLY, it is good to see you giving them hell here at the Big Top, buttercup.  I just "drive by" every now and then but your debating skills are unmatched!  Expose the lies and half truths of rethugliteacons!!!!!!!

============================================================================

 

Thanks, Rocky, but I don't know how long I'm sticking around.  This crap gets old.

 

You should make your way back to the "slime" forum (our bff, b50m, described it that way); it's much more balanced there.  It's not as lively as it used to be, but at least it's not near death like this one.

 

We miss you there.

I'm confused too butter. Cain makes sense to me. 9-9-9- has nothing at all to do with state and local taxes. I pay federal, state, and local taxes now.

============================================================================

 

But I thought the Republican mantra was "lower taxes."  Or is that just "lower taxes" on the rich only?

 

Alabama has its fair share of poor people.  So tell me, in addition to our state tax, how this won't negatively impact the poor and middle class?  Those who can afford to least will pay more under this plan.  It is in addition to state and local taxes unless Cain can repeal those, and you and I both know he can't.  

 

It is a tax break for the rich only.  Simple as that.

Personally my taxes will be lower under 999. To those that are not paying any taxes today then their tax probably would go up. I'm sure most rich people are not paying 9% today. If my taxes didn't change at all I would still be for a simpler plan. Todays tax structure and the IRS need to be replaced period.

Zero tax on capital gains is worth $150billion a year to the top 1%

As I've stated in another thread, not taxing capital gains, at all, is my biggest objection to 999.  As to state and local taxes, they remain a constant, outside the federal tax formula.  What part of that is not understood. 

============================================================================

 

The poor and middle class would pay more under his plan...unless they opt to buy only used everything, including food.  LOL!  

 

If you didn't know the man was serious, this would be too funny!

 

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...xes-demand-increase/

 

2012 GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain has risen in the polls recently, and his 999 tax plan was the star of the GOP primary debate last week (with the number nine warranting 85 different mentions). But more and more analysts are pointing out that the plan entails a big tax increase on low- and middle-income Americans, while it would cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

 

Cain has vehemently protested that his plan would raise taxes on the poorest Americans (in part by saying they will just shift their consumption to used goods, which are exempted from his proposed nine percent sales tax)....

As we’ve noted, because low-income Americans spend almost all of what they earn, while the wealthy do not (and earn a significant amount of their money from investments, the income from which goes untaxed entirely under 999), Cain’s plan will be a massive shift in the tax burden down the income scale. Of course, as Cain has explained, the poor could always just buy used food in order to lower their tax rate. And evidently he believes Americans will be so overjoyed at the prospect of higher taxes that they will flood the streets to demand them.

Buffett would pay zero income tax under Cains plan. 

Once again the genius of the Repubes is exposed for all to see.

And mock. 

Winning!!!

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...n-999-plan-analysis/

 

NEW ANALYSIS:  The Three Things You Need To Know About Herman Cain's 999 Plan

 

1) 999 Will Raise Taxes On Middle- And Low-Income Americans, By A Lot:

 

Cain’s tax plan consists of three different 9 percent taxes — one on wage income (investment income is exempt), one on sales of goods and services (including food, housing, and medicine), and one on business income (investments and purchases from other businesses are deductible; wages, however, are not). But most Americans will end up paying all three of those taxes, for a combined tax rate of 27 percent of their income.

 

That’s because middle and low-income Americans get all, or nearly all, of their income from ordinary wages — all of which would be subject to Cain’s 9 percent wage tax — and then they spend all of their income, which means it would be taxed again by the 9 percent sales tax. Finally, the burden of the 9 percent business income tax would be passed on to them as well, either in the form of lower wages — since wages are not deductible — or in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

 

The bottom line is that most Americans will pay all three of Cain’s taxes, making their real federal tax rate 27 percent. Compare that to the current tax code, under which someone in the bottom quintile pays two percent of their income in federal taxes and someone in the middle quintile pays 15 percent.The fact is that pretty much everyone making up to around $100,000 a year would pay more under Cain’s plan than they do now.

2) 999 Will Give The Rich A HUGE Tax Cut:

 

Because the 999 plan will operate, in practice, as a 9 percent tax on wages, and an 18 percent tax on goods and services, only a fraction of a wealthy household’s income will end up subject to these taxes. That’s because wealthy people get a lot of their income from capital gains — which are exempt from the wage tax — and they don’t spend all of their income, so anything they save won’t be subject to taxes either.

 

Today, someone in the richest 1 percent typically pays about 30 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. Since people at the top of the income ladder make about half of their income from capital gains, and only spend about half of their income in a given year, their tax rate would drop all the way down to 13.5 percent. That’s even lower than what middle-income people pay today.

3) 999 Would Cause Massive Deficits, Enormous Amounts Of New Debt:

 

Despite the Cain campaign’s claims to the contrary, 999 would not raise nearly enough revenue to close the budget deficit. In an earlier analysis that mistakenly assumed his 9 percent business tax would operate like our current corporate income tax, we underestimated how much revenue it would raise. But even accounting for the new specifics, the 999 plan would still only generate around 14 percent of GDP in revenue. That’s even less than we are collecting now, when revenue levels are at historic lows. Even if Cain adopted all of the draconian spending cuts contained in the House Republican Budget, 14 percent of GDP in revenue would still result in $11.5 trillion in added debt from 2013 through 2021.

http://thinkprogress.org/econo...erman-cain-tax-food/

 

Herman Cain:  Tax Poor People's Food To Finance Massive Tax Break For The Rich

 

The centerpiece of former pizza czar Herman Cain’s presidential campaign is his “999″ plan, which would slash taxes on the wealthy, drive up deficits to the worst point since World War II, and force low-income Americans to pay a massive nine times their current tax rate. In an interview this morning with CNN’s Candy Crowley, Cain even said food and clothing would not be exempt from the 9 percent national sales tax he would put in place if elected president. Indeed, he said it would be “fair” for a poor person to pay as much in sales taxes as Crowley does:

CROWLEY: Is there any exception, as you see it, in this consumption tax? Except for clothing, perhaps? Except for food? [...]

 

CAIN: Nope, you don’t have to do that. Nope, you don’t have to do that. [...]

 

CROWLEY: So a poor person is paying the same amount of taxes on groceries as I am? Does that sound fair to you, just in a vacuum?

 

CAIN: Yes, it does sound fair because of the other point I’m about to make. If they need to buy a car or a home or some hard goods that are used, they pay no taxes.

I make less that $100,000 and I pay way more than 15% in federal taxes. I need a new accountant.

So you think people should pay different amounts of tax on food depending on how much they make? I think everyone should pay their fair share, where have I heard that before?

The liberals hate the plan because it's simple, it's easy to understand and it's being brought out by a business man who happens to be black. If Cain wins the nomination, there goes all the racist charges the left has saved up.

 

Oh, and to criticize any thing from Cain is racist.  The left has taught us this from the last three failed years of Obama.

 

So butter is racist.  Who knew?

a few tax solutions that could work:

1. Close or modify the loophole that allows people like Warren Buffet to take the bulk of their income as cap gains. WB only pays himself a $100k salary which is why his effective tax rate his lower than his secretary's. While we are at it we could lower the secretary's tax burden too.

 

2. Close corporate tax loopholes, simply the corporate tax code, and cut our corporate tax rate in half to make it competitive. Companies spend millions upon millions of dollars on accountants and lawyers to figure out our messed up tax code. That is not an efficient use of resources.

 

3. Lower income tax rates across the board and replace with a national consumption tax that exempts food.

 

4. Legalize and tax prostitution and drugs for all consenting adults.

You should make your way back to the "slime" forum (our bff, b50m, described it that way); it's much more balanced there.--butter

Translation: only liberal opinions are allowed. All others are ridiculed and belittled until the poster leaves.

Eliminate all corp taxes, and require that a corp to distribute most profits as dividends. 

Tax all income including cap gains at the same rates.

 

We will always need to have progressive taxation brackets unless the fedgov can cut spending by 40%, which will never happen. 

 

Most of the comments to follow will be TeaParty babbling, which is entertaining to an infant, but not to solution-oriented adults. 

I certainly don't put richardhead in the solution-oriented adults group.

Eliminate all corp taxes, and require that a corp to distribute most profits as dividends. 

Tax all income including cap gains at the same rates.

 

I disagree on the corporate taxes. We should still have a corp tax rate, just simplified. Also, companies should be the ones deciding how to distribute earnings. What if a company wants to build a new plant or expand operations? The rule requiring them to pay out earings to shareholders could keep them from doing that. A rule like that would give companies more incentive to not go public.

---

---

The owners of the corp are the stockholders so let them vote on the dividend distribution issue. 

 

Why is a public compnay better than a private company? 

The owners of the corp are the stockholders so let them vote on the dividend distribution issue. 

 

Why is a public compnay better than a private company? 

 

I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about making a gov't regulation that would require publicly traded companies to pay out the majority of their earnings to shareholders as dividends, which would be a disaster. I support the shareholders voting for such action.

I see people say this forum is dead and stupid and boring but yet here they are. I'll never understand that.

Kinda funny.

============================================================================

 

That's not a put-down; it's the truth.  And it is pretty pathetic when the Politics thread is the hottest thread on here.  

 

It's a short run - meaning, this forum will go back to near-death soon.

============================================================================

 

Thanks, Rocky, but I don't know how long I'm sticking around. This crap gets old.

 

You should make your way back to the "slime" forum (our bff, b50m, described it that way); it's much more balanced there. It's not as lively as it used to be, but at least it's not near death like this one.

 

We miss you there

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hard to say which of you is the most pitiful. Neither one of you could debate your way out of a wet paper bag, yet you both think you have mad skills.

No, as to the poor and middle class paying more.

 

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.

 

At a $50,000 salary for a family of four 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.

 

============================================================================

 

Isn't it obvious?  Rocky and I are just jealous of your remarkable acumen where these debates are concerned.  For example, you used the phrase "mad skills" - which is so original, not to mention so 1991.  You are....well, awesome!

Who said "... " the worst idea is a proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes."

 

Who also said this, less than a year ago?

"Even worse is reason number two: In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing its national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. After discovering many of the tax grenades in the recently passed health care reform bill, which is already driving costs up and access down, it would be real easy for an overzealous bureaucrat to insert the language in the legislation “national retail and wholesale” tax.

 
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/herman-cain-opposed-a-sales-tax-before-making-it-a-key-part-of-his-9-9-9-plan-2011-10#ixzz1b7AMGU7

If some other candidate was on record as having changed his position this radically, he would be called a flip-flopper, and that is just what Cain is.  His representative (in the link) does a pitiful job of trying to deny that Cain has taken 180-degree different positions on this issue .

Cain is a novelty, and his appeal will wane in the next 3 weeks.  He and Ron Paul can debate each other for the title of Captain Wingnut. 

Romney wont get past Mormonism or RomneyCare. 

Perry will be the nominee.

Or, as Rush intimated last week, Palin is still in the game. 

Isn't it obvious? Rocky and I are just jealous of your remarkable acumen where these debates are concerned. For example, you used the phrase "mad skills" - which is so original, not to mention so 1991. You are....well, awesome!

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh really butter? Are you sure it's "so 1991"? Then alert the media because it is still being used all over the net and in conversations. Maybe if you did have a few skills you'd have known that. All you can do is post silly crap, in caps no less, and then claim you were only "kidding" when you're called on it. I've seen your "debating skills" and believe me they are far from awesome.

Butters and Rocky come here to post because the 'slime' forum comments amount to 'I agree'. No debating skills necessary when there is no debate.

============================================================================

 

You are obviously the one lacking in debating skills, Jest-smirking, or you wouldn't be trying to turn this thread into a critique of mine - a debate, I might add, that you've contributed nothing to.  

 

So thrill us or, more accurately, surprise us, working girl, with your "mad skills" about Cain's tax plan.  Do you agree with it and if so, why?  Try your best to type out some astute and profound thoughts in, let's say, at least two sentences (a full paragraph is probably too much to ask).  I'll give you at least two days to accomplish what is obviously going to be a monumental challenge for you.

============================================================================

 

And so what's the difference in the TNF forum where, in your opinion, everyone is liberal, and this forum where 90% of the posters are right-wingers?  If one doesn't agree with the right-wing agenda here in politics, that person is ambushed, gang-style, and you know it.  

 

Just more of the pot calling the kettle black from you.  Almost all the comments on this politics forum amount to 'I agree' and if someone doesn't agree, she gets pounced on by the rest.  You know it's true, but you're just too much of a hypocrite to admit it.  

 

I think you just got your feewings hurt because when you announced you were leaving TNF like the thumb-sucking toddler you become when the tables are turned on you, no one begged you to stay.  However, someone did suggest you put on your big girl panties and stop whining, which I thought was pretty d-a-m-n funny.

 

But I don't believe you've left TNF at all; I think you post under another moniker now...and I'm by far not alone in that belief.

============================================================================

 

A post worth re-posting.

 

I noticed none of the right-wing nut jobs on this forum had anything to say about Cain's flip-flopping on a national sales tax.  He was obviously against it before he was for it (gee, that sounds familiar).  Not surprising, since none of them have the cojones to admit when Republicans are being flat-out liars.  But Cain's going to get hammered on it in the debate tonight and his 15 minutes will be over.  

 

At that time, Romney, the candidate who can't seem to fire up the Republican voters, will be back on top.  And since the evangelical Christians think his faith is nothing more than a cult and he laid the foundation in Massachusetts for Obamacare, I think I'm liking him as the GOP nominee.  

 

Originally Posted by Buttercup:

You believe a lot of things. I believe you come here because no one comments over there. I left because I was attacked non-stop no mater what I posted. Every time I made a post I had Howie or some troll, whose names kept changing, blasting me. Of course the finale was the constant threats from your group against me over false accusations. I sent a pm to Steve at the time and told him about it. He agreed to cancel my account and remove my posts. Do you think i would have gone through all that if I had not been THREATENED?

 

You are not attacked here. You have had discussions with conservatives and have not been called names or hounded to death. You have not been ganged up on.

 

As for another poster, DF and Opie said you all were accusing some guy other there. I'm sure he is wondering what the hell is going on.

 

So, no, my wifddle feewings were not hurt, but I'm not an idiot either.

 

But,  I'll stop with all references to the slime forum.

 

And I just won't respond to any of your posts.