999 and it not producing enough revenue.

And Cain was horrible on the Sunday morning show explaining this. He won't give details and just keeps saying it will work. And then finally admitted that it will cost some of the lower class more money. This helps the wealthy the most and Obama would eat him up on this and win 4 more years. Cain needs a new plan or fix this one if possible. No wonder the left media is not attacking Cain very much. They want this plan up against Obama.

The Viking wrote: And Cain was horrible on the Sunday morning show explaining this. He won't give details and just keeps saying it will work. And then finally admitted that it will cost some of the lower class more money. This helps the wealthy the most and Obama would eat him up on this and win 4 more years. Cain needs a new plan or fix this one if possible. No wonder the left media is not attacking Cain very much. They want this plan up against Obama.

Sounds like Obama's presentations.

The Viking wrote: OK, question. Using an example of a mother with 2 kids making 20,000 living in NH. No sales tax and most likely they are in the 47% who pay no taxes. They are getting by on about $1667 per month for rent or mortgage, food, gas, insurance, two kids clothes, utilities, gas for their car to drive to work, and a few other things. With this plan of adding 9% federal tax to all, they lose $1800 per year that is $150 per month. And if they fill up only once a week at 18 gallons. they are paying $25 more per month for gas since that is included in here and added on top of the 18 cents per gallon we already pay for federal tax on gas. And they now also have to pay an extra 9% sales tax which NH and 4 other states don't have and most other states are a lot lower than 9%. So if they are paying $400 a month for food and clothes they now have $45 more they lose. so this example where Cain promised that this would NOT raise taxes on the lower class, (which he admitted on Sunday morning that it would on some), is costing this lady and her two kids $220 more per month our of her $1667. That is losing 13% of her income to the new taxes! She now only has $1447 for ALL her bills. What does she cut out? Food? Heat? Shoes for her kids that have holes in them? Insurance and let the government eat more of the cost?

And if 47% of people pay NO taxes right now and he is telling them that they will now have to give up almost 10% of thier income, WHO exactly is going to vote for this when the true numbers come out?

And this plan ASSUMES that businesses will lower their prices? What if they don't? It is a WHAT IF and MAYBE plan. I don't like it! I like Cain but not this plan.

Look at this chart of the state sales taxes. The left column. Most all are between 4-6%. You can't take off the local taxes and surchrges as they will stay. Now they will be 9%? So almost every state will have a 33-50% increase in sales tax now. Everyone! Tham includes the people bringing home $800 per month with a part time job. They lose 9% of that if they buy essentials. How is this a good plan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxe ... ted_States

The big assumption is that prices will go down with less corporate taxes but prices can be pretty resistant to cuts, it does happen, but it isn't certain.

SS109 wrote:

The Viking wrote: OK, question. Using an example of a mother with 2 kids making 20,000 living in NH. No sales tax and most likely they are in the 47% who pay no taxes. They are getting by on about $1667 per month for rent or mortgage, food, gas, insurance, two kids clothes, utilities, gas for their car to drive to work, and a few other things. With this plan of adding 9% federal tax to all, they lose $1800 per year that is $150 per month. And if they fill up only once a week at 18 gallons. they are paying $25 more per month for gas since that is included in here and added on top of the 18 cents per gallon we already pay for federal tax on gas. And they now also have to pay an extra 9% sales tax which NH and 4 other states don't have and most other states are a lot lower than 9%. So if they are paying $400 a month for food and clothes they now have $45 more they lose. so this example where Cain promised that this would NOT raise taxes on the lower class, (which he admitted on Sunday morning that it would on some), is costing this lady and her two kids $220 more per month our of her $1667. That is losing 13% of her income to the new taxes! She now only has $1447 for ALL her bills. What does she cut out? Food? Heat? Shoes for her kids that have holes in them? Insurance and let the government eat more of the cost?

And if 47% of people pay NO taxes right now and he is telling them that they will now have to give up almost 10% of thier income, WHO exactly is going to vote for this when the true numbers come out?

And this plan ASSUMES that businesses will lower their prices? What if they don't? It is a WHAT IF and MAYBE plan. I don't like it! I like Cain but not this plan.

Look at this chart of the state sales taxes. The left column. Most all are between 4-6%. You can't take off the local taxes and surchrges as they will stay. Now they will be 9%? So almost every state will have a 33-50% increase in sales tax now. Everyone! Tham includes the people bringing home $800 per month with a part time job. They lose 9% of that if they buy essentials. How is this a good plan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxe ... ted_States

The big assumption is that prices will go down with less corporate taxes but prices can be pretty resistant to cuts, it does happen, but it isn't certain.

Yes and that is a huge part of making his plan work. They have to lower prices due to competition, and it doesn't happen often. Obama will tear that apart. He really needs more details or to change or fix it.

Here is the example Cain used Sunday morning. A loaf of bread. If one store has bread at $2.40 and the store down the street uses the tax break to them to lower their prices 10% to $2.20, where are you going to buy your bread? And then the next store will have to lower to keep up. Ummmmm..... I buy where ever is closest. And 20 cents won't make me change stores. Especially since I am paying it right back anyway in the new sales tax.

And I just remembered another part of his plan. He said 'State' sales tax won't change, so I am wrong in my previous example. the 4-6% will be on TOP of the 9%. So people will be paying up to 15% in taxes on groceries now.

9 responses to 9 false attacks on the 9-9-9 plan
October 16th, 2011 | Author: Herman Cain


These criticisms deserve responses, and here they are:
Claim 1: The 9 percent sales tax, which is one third of the formula, is regressive and hurts the poor, many of whom pay no federal income taxes now. Response: This claim ignores some important aspects of the plan.

Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians.


Claim 3: The plan redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Response: It does no such thing. It is fair and neutral, taxing everything once and nothing twice.

Claim 4: The plan should have included a pre-bate to offset the sales tax. Response: The last thing we need is to establish another federal entitlement, which the proposed pre-bate would quickly become. And it’s not necessary.

Claim 5: The business tax represents a new tax on labor. Response: Paul Krugman of the New York Times makes this claim because we do not allow businesses to deduct the cost of labor from their taxable revenue. But the claim is bogus for several reasons.

Claim 6: The numbers don’t add up. The 9-9-9 tax wouldn’t generate enough revenue. Response: Several groups apparently “ran the numbers” and came to this conclusion, including Bloomberg News and the Center for American Progress.

Claim 7: The 9-9-9 plan is a really an 18 percent value-added tax plus a 9 percent income tax. Response: That’s an argument? That some might be able to give it a disagreeable label? What we have done is split the incidence of the tax so it is harder to evade – since you’d have to dodge two taxes, not just one, to save the 18 percent.

Claim 8: Some people (like Herman Cain) who may live off capital gains, would pay no income taxes. Is that fair? Response: First, one of the benefits of the 9-9-9 plan is that, even if someone doesn’t pay much or any of one of the taxes, he or she is still likely affected by the other two.

Claim 9: It won’t pass. Response: Politicians propose things that can pass. Problem-solvers propose things that can work.

So there. I welcome the robust discussion and the many questions that are being raised about the 9-9-9 plan. Asked and answered. What else do you want to know?

TPP wrote: 9 responses to 9 false attacks on the 9-9-9 plan
October 16th, 2011 | Author: Herman Cain

These criticisms deserve responses, and here they are:
Claim 1: The 9 percent sales tax, which is one third of the formula, is regressive and hurts the poor, many of whom pay no federal income taxes now. Response: This claim ignores some important aspects of the plan.


So there. I welcome the robust discussion and the many questions that are being raised about the 9-9-9 plan. Asked and answered. What else do you want to know?

How does that answer the claim....what important aspects of the plan are being ignored?.....if Cain isn't willing to detail those aspects, of course they're being ignored. The man is slippery, I'll give him that. Spell it out Cain.

TPP wrote: 9 responses to 9 false attacks on the 9-9-9 plan
October 16th, 2011 | Author: Herman Cain

These criticisms deserve responses, and here they are:
Claim 1: The 9 percent sales tax, which is one third of the formula, is regressive and hurts the poor, many of whom pay no federal income taxes now. Response: This claim ignores some important aspects of the plan.

Claim 2: Creating a new tax is merely setting the stage for higher rates on all taxes, as untrustworthy politicians will surely raise them. Response: First of all, that is not a criticism of the 9-9-9 plan. It is a criticism of politicians.


Claim 3: The plan redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich. Response: It does no such thing. It is fair and neutral, taxing everything once and nothing twice.

Claim 4: The plan should have included a pre-bate to offset the sales tax. Response: The last thing we need is to establish another federal entitlement, which the proposed pre-bate would quickly become. And it’s not necessary.

Claim 5: The business tax represents a new tax on labor. Response: Paul Krugman of the New York Times makes this claim because we do not allow businesses to deduct the cost of labor from their taxable revenue. But the claim is bogus for several reasons.

Claim 6: The numbers don’t add up. The 9-9-9 tax wouldn’t generate enough revenue. Response: Several groups apparently “ran the numbers” and came to this conclusion, including Bloomberg News and the Center for American Progress.

Claim 7: The 9-9-9 plan is a really an 18 percent value-added tax plus a 9 percent income tax. Response: That’s an argument? That some might be able to give it a disagreeable label? What we have done is split the incidence of the tax so it is harder to evade – since you’d have to dodge two taxes, not just one, to save the 18 percent.

Claim 8: Some people (like Herman Cain) who may live off capital gains, would pay no income taxes. Is that fair? Response: First, one of the benefits of the 9-9-9 plan is that, even if someone doesn’t pay much or any of one of the taxes, he or she is still likely affected by the other two.

Claim 9: It won’t pass. Response: Politicians propose things that can pass. Problem-solvers propose things that can work.

So there. I welcome the robust discussion and the many questions that are being raised about the 9-9-9 plan. Asked and answered. What else do you want to know?

So go back to my scenario on the first page. I am still trying to figure out if that is true. Do the 47% who pay no taxes just get an increase of 9%? So that is an automatic 47% voting for Obama? Can you or anyone tell me if the numbers I typed for a mother making $20,000 are accurate? That scenario is starting to be posted everywhere. As I said, if you are telling people making under $20,000 that can't even feed their kids that they now have to lose another $220 a month to the government under Cain, it WILL get Obama reelected.

I hate the title of this video but it is the only one I can find with most of the interview. Cain admits it will raise taxes on some of the poor..

[youtube:298nmfxr][/youtube:298nmfxr]

And when you watch the video, he assumes the farmer will lower his prices even though the cost of his fuel and machinery to work the field just went up 9%. And he assumes the delivery guy will lower taxes, even though his gas just went up 10%. And he assumes the baker will lower his prices because the corporate tax dropped, even though his cost for the materials just went up 9%. It doesn't add up!