[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by redbaron

I'm sorry but as Ridley pointed out, a welfare recipient buying a huge tv is putting money back into the economy, but frankly that's an exceptionally poor use of funds.

Why do you get to decide what other people do with their money? Isn't that the foundational argument against taxation? It's bad for the gov't to tell rich people what to do with their money, but good for the gov't to tell the poor what to do with their money? What am I missing?

Also, the plan does call for an elimination of income tax, and frankly with the 8.8-9.7% state/local sales taxes i'm paying now, an extra 9-10% is still a 10% reduction in my tax burden, and I'm stuck in a home that lost 50% of it's value (while property taxes have gone up thanks to the rental population around here who believes in the 'it doesn't affect me' philosophy) and my effective income tax rate is still well over 22%-

No, it calls for a flat tax of 9% on income, across the board. Which of the three "9" isn't income?

Epaphras, you'll never convince people that having everyone share an equal percentage of burden for society is fair- either they want something for nothing, or they have a classic case of guilt from having too much.

Huh? Have you read the thread? Have any of us made the argument that equal percentage is a bad thing? The point we've been making is that the poor are paying an equal percentage, but making that payment in a different manner.

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Huh? Have you read the thread? Have any of us made the argument that equal percentage is a bad thing? The point we've been making is that the poor are paying an equal percentage, but making that payment in a different manner.

All I'm trying to do is wade through the swamp of figuring out, given a progressive tax structure, what is a fair scheme of rates and thresholds. Apparently, everyone paying the same percentage is not "fair", but at the same time, no one can agree what the upper-income folks' "fair share" should be. Apparently, the wealthiest 10% paying nearly 70% of all federal income tax revenue is not their fair share.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

All I'm trying to do is wade through the swamp of figuring out, given a progressive tax structure, what is a fair scheme of rates and thresholds. Apparently, everyone paying the same percentage is not "fair", but at the same time, no one can agree what the upper-income folks' "fair share" should be. Apparently, the wealthiest 10% paying nearly 70% of all federal income tax revenue is not their fair share.

I don't think you can do that until you figure out what A). Fair share of what? What are you paying into? and B). Who's doing the collecting?

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Why do you get to decide what other people do with their money? Isn't that the foundational argument against taxation? It's bad for the gov't to tell rich people what to do with their money, but good for the gov't to tell the poor what to do with their money? What am I missing?

It's not their money? If the poor are accepting welfare because they don't make enough money to survive, then shouldn't the government be able to direct how those welfare dollars are spent?

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by normajean777

It's not their money? If the poor are accepting welfare because they don't make enough money to survive, then shouldn't the government be able to direct how those welfare dollars are spent?

Why? If oyu really believe in small government, then what business is it of the gov't's once it's in an individual's bank account?

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Why? If oyu really believe in small government, then what business is it of the gov't's once it's in an individual's bank account?

Thats the other part of my point I suppose. I don't believe in welfare.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Thats the other part of my point I suppose. I don't believe in welfare.

So, given that some economists are correct and 8-10% is the new normal unemployment, what should these people do during the time period that they cannot find work because said work is unavailable?

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by thesteve

So, given that some economists are correct and 8-10% is the new normal unemployment, what should these people do during the time period that they cannot find work because said work is unavailable?

Adapt to survive?

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Adapt to survive?

So, basically prepare for homelessness?

Though I have heard that panhandling in big cities pays well and since there's no paper trail it can be done without worrying about payroll taxes and what not.

EDIT: I realize this post is a little sarcastic. I don't really want to get into the list of "things people who lost their jobs can do besides sit around all day". I'm already doing plenty with my three days of non-child rearing during the week.

[ICallHimTurtle]

I think all the assumptions here are crazy. We can't say panhadling pays well. We can't say the majority of poor are on welfare and that the majority of rich are greedy bastards. If we can, it might be nice to see actual stats.

[S.B.Nichols]

Frankly, the 9/9/9 plan is doomed to failure for three reasons.

1. Sticker shock. Money taken out of a paycheck isn't noticed. Most people probably don't even think of that money as income until they get a refund check. Adding 9% to the cost of goods and services...people would notice. They might save money down the line, but they'd never know it or care.

2. Sheer logistics. It would require a massive rework of the tax codes and enforcement, and frankly, our govt likes to spend money, not work for it.

3. Mostly because Cain will never be President.

I like it though. I haven't done the math like Epaphras, but I could see it saving me money and restoring the economy. Cain's done a bad job of selling it as anything more than a sound bite. If he were to focus more on the long term effects (better economy = better prices on goods down the line=saving YOU money) he might have a better chance. I do agree that the biggest problem/fear would be that 9% could easily become 10%, then 11%, etc....

[Bryan]

9-9-9 tax plan: Does it make Herman Cain a Robin Hood for the rich? - CSMonitor.com

This article has been very enlightening!!

This part is especially troubling:

But Williams notes one caveat: It appears the Cain plan allows no exemption for wages paid to employees. (Cain's website describes the business flat tax as 9 percent of “gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders.”) So, even though the payroll tax would disappear, employers would in effect pay a new tax on their cost of labor.

Wait a second. How is INCREASING taxes on labor wages going to incent businesses to hire more people? It seems to me that if you want to spur economic growth and help reduce unemployment you don't want to increase taxes on labor but decrease it. THIS PLAN MAKES NO SENSE!!

Herman Cain's plan is designed to make the poor poorer and the rich richer. Everything about it smells of capitalist, corporate greed!

[Ridley's Own]

That's really interesting, Bryan. Every time I watch Cain, I get the impression that he's more of a gadfly than a candidate. I try to picture him standing along side Javier Solano or Nicholas Sarkozy or Her Frumpiness, Angela Merkel, and I can't quite see it. Referring to Uzbekistan as "Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan" seems particularly off, especially since C. Asia is where we've been deploying troops for the past 10 years.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

I try to picture him standing along side Javier Solano or Nicholas Sarkozy or Her Frumpiness, Angela Merkel, and I can't quite see it.

I've been having this problem as well. But sometimes I get a brief flash of it, and it feels like a nightmare.