Herman Cain: Tax Poor People’s Food To Finance Tax Break

pineinthegrass wrote: Do you have a link where Cain has said the 9-9-9 plan will fund SS and Medicare? I can't find it on his website. It sounds more like he wants to get rid of them. From his website under entitlements...

It is time to admit the mistakes, and get the federal government out of the way. This will allow states, cities, churches, charities and businesses to offer a helping hand instead of a handout where they live. People closest to the problems are the best ones to solve the problems effectively.

We can fulfill our responsibility to our golden age citizens and future retirees by empowering them instead of restricting them.

https://www.hermancain.com/the-issues

In the debates, he has also proposed a Chile-like system.

He has said his plan would be revenue neutral, and that does imply SS and Medicare would be covered in some way. But it would be nice to have some details. Currently people know what their SS benefit will be based on payroll taxes paid, but how do you track sales tax paid?

I can't argue that he wants to get rid of the federal charity programs and have that responsibility for the individual welfare of the citizens of a state returned to that state, mostly because I think it is true. It is also a position which with I agree.

I also take issue with the last sentence that I snipped from your earlier post. Do you know what your SS benefit will be based on the payroll taxes you have paid in? I don't think you do. The SS benefit that you will receive is entirely dependent upon whatever Congress decides to grant you. They can, at any time, reduce or enlarge that benefit as they see fit. You have no personal property rights to the money you have contributed thus far to SS, that was decided in a 1960 Supreme Court case, the money you and I contribute is being spent for the benefit of those currently retired workers, not to provide for our own benefits in the future. Empowering someone means giving them control of something instead of giving it to someone else. Currently the federal government has control of the future security of the retired workers - do you think this is the best of all possible places for that control to lie? What if they decide to cut your benefit to half of what your last SS statement said it would be? What recourse would you have under that scenario? The Supreme Court of this nation has already determined that you have no personal property rights and that the taxes paid by both the employer and the employee are "paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. " (1937 Helvering v Davis decision - the one that also said the tax was constitutional). You don't know what your benefit will be upon retirement - it is completely within the power of 536 members of the federal government to determine what, if anything, that benefit will be.

In 1960, Flemming v Nestor, the Supreme Court said, "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments." In another part of that decision the court held, "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands." What does that all mean? Despite what you are being told, you have no rights to any benefits from the Social Security system regardless of how many years you paid into the system or how much money you paid into it. The federal government could simply decide it can no longer afford the program and stop paying you anything at any point it decides it wishes to do so. It can reduce the estimated benefits shown on your last SS statement to 75%, 50%, or even less. You have no independent security as a result of the taxes you have paid, all you have is the dependent security the federal government decides it wishes, or is able, to provide at some point in the future. Your security is wholly dependent upon the federal government deciding how much, or how little, it wishes to pay you from the program - which is really no security at all. Ready to reform Social Security to give you the personal property rights to your contributions that you currently lack now?

I am.

The Cain tax plan is nothing more than a HUGE freebie for the richest, at the expense of balancing it on the backs of the poor...again. And would lead to unbelievable budget deficits (2-3 times what they are now) in 1 or 2 years.... But hey, no matter... He makes pizzas, right?

PrintSmith wrote: I can't argue that he wants to get rid of the federal charity programs and have that responsibility for the individual welfare of the citizens of a state returned to that state, mostly because I think it is true. It is also a position which with I agree.

I also take issue with the last sentence that I snipped from your earlier post. Do you know what your SS benefit will be based on the payroll taxes you have paid in? I don't think you do. The SS benefit that you will receive is entirely dependent upon whatever Congress decides to grant you. They can, at any time, reduce or enlarge that benefit as they see fit. You have no personal property rights to the money you have contributed thus far to SS, that was decided in a 1960 Supreme Court case, the money you and I contribute is being spent for the benefit of those currently retired workers, not to provide for our own benefits in the future. Empowering someone means giving them control of something instead of giving it to someone else. Currently the federal government has control of the future security of the retired workers - do you think this is the best of all possible places for that control to lie? What if they decide to cut your benefit to half of what your last SS statement said it would be? What recourse would you have under that scenario? The Supreme Court of this nation has already determined that you have no personal property rights and that the taxes paid by both the employer and the employee are "paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way. " (1937 Helvering v Davis decision - the one that also said the tax was constitutional). You don't know what your benefit will be upon retirement - it is completely within the power of 536 members of the federal government to determine what, if anything, that benefit will be.

In 1960, Flemming v Nestor, the Supreme Court said, "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments." In another part of that decision the court held, "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands." What does that all mean? Despite what you are being told, you have no rights to any benefits from the Social Security system regardless of how many years you paid into the system or how much money you paid into it. The federal government could simply decide it can no longer afford the program and stop paying you anything at any point it decides it wishes to do so. It can reduce the estimated benefits shown on your last SS statement to 75%, 50%, or even less. You have no independent security as a result of the taxes you have paid, all you have is the dependent security the federal government decides it wishes, or is able, to provide at some point in the future. Your security is wholly dependent upon the federal government deciding how much, or how little, it wishes to pay you from the program - which is really no security at all. Ready to reform Social Security to give you the personal property rights to your contributions that you currently lack now?

I guess I should of been clearer and saved you all that typing because I already know your Social Security payment is not guaranteed. My point was that you know how much you've contributed and your eventual payment amount is determined by how much you've contributed. Yes, Congress can change even that as well, but it's always been that way to date.

The more I read about Cain's 9-9-9 plan, the more I continue to not like it. And it's such a huge change from what we have now, I see no chance it will go anywhere.

Cain's website says he eventually wants to go to the Fair Tax. That's a huge change as well, but at least we know a lot more details about it. And the Fair Tax does address one of my main concerns about the 9-9-9 plan, the over taxing of poor people. With the Fair Tax everyone with a Social Security number gets an annual payment (a "prebate") to cover taxes on essential goods and services. The 9-9-9 plan does not have such a feature and I wonder why?

Also, the Fair Tax does monitor your income over time and bases you Social Security payment on that. I'm not sure how fair it is, but that's what they propose. There are no details I've seen on what the 9-9-9 plan would do.

Maybe Cain would be better off just talking about what he really wants; the Fair Tax?

BearMtnHIB wrote:

And what do you do to them if they can't afford to pay the tax? Toss them in jail? Their kids too?

Yes- throw them in jail until they pay their fair share! Throw the kids in jail too until they work off their tax debt. I'm sick and tired of deadbeats who think it's OK to tax "other people" but not OK to pay tax themselves. Everyone needs to pay!

And if they are caught not paying then YES- they should face the same justice that I would face for not paying, and that includes jail if they have no assets to seize. That's exactly what would happen to me if I didn't pay- so what makes THEM so special?

HUH?

Yes, and let's start putting people to the question again as well. Torquemada would be proud of this attitude.

All that's missing is a plague. Think I'll head up to the Bailey Library and catch me some prairie dogs - they have fleas.

I watched tonight's Republican debate. I acually liked the format of them sitting at a table. I didn't see the beer, pizza, and nachos, though. Still it was a good format, especially when they asked each other questions and the finger nails dug in.

Back to topic, the 9-9-9 plan was heavily discussed. None of the other candidates who spoke about it liked it. And Rick Santorum asked the audience if any of them approved. I didn't see a raised hand, but I might of missed Cain's since the camera was looking at the audience.

pineinthegrass wrote: Back to topic, the 9-9-9 plan was heavily discussed. None of the other candidates who spoke about it liked it. And Rick Santorum asked the audience if any of them approved. I didn't see a raised hand, but I might of missed Cain's since the camera was looking at the audience.

Cain should rename it the "Nein, Nein, Nein" Plan.

Wayne- you just hate Cain because he's black.

Amazing how racist the left is.

No, I hate Cain because he has simplistic solutions to complex problems.

Conservation Voice wrote: No, I hate Cain because he has simplistic solutions to complex problems.

Sort of like what r's say
about Obama.