E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP
Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain
The Tax Policy Center has released its analysis of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, and it finds that the only people who would benefit from it are those making more than $200,000 a year.
Everyone else, especially the poor, would pay more. And the middle class would now have the highest effective federal tax rate.
Those making $1 million a year or more would get a gaudy nearly $500,000 tax cut, a 15% change in their favor.
The poorest, those making between less than $10,000 a year up to $30,000 a year would see a between 15% and 20% tax increase. That means they would pay between $1,100 and $3,800 a year more in taxes.
Those making between $30,000 and $100,000 a year, would pay more than $4,000 a year more in taxes.
Here’s how the numbers break down by income level:
Less than $10,000: $1,122 more (19.5% increase, 22.1% tax rate)
$10,000-$20,000: $2,705 more (17.8% increase, 19.7% tax rate)
$20,000-$30,000: $3,833 more (15.0% increase, 22.1% tax rate)
$30,000-$40,000: $4,196 more (11.7% increase, 23.2% tax rate)
$40,000-$50,000: $4,399 more (9.5% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$50,000-$75,000: $4,326 more (6.9% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$75,000-$100,000: $4,368 more (4.9% increase, 23.8% tax rate)
$100,000-$200,000: $2,105 more (1.5% increase, 23.1% tax rate)
$200,000-$500,000: $11,155 less (3.8% decrease, 20.6% tax rate)
$500,000-$1 million: $59,489 less (8.6% decrease, 18.1% tax rate)
$1 million or more: $455,247 less (15% decrease, 17.9% tax rate)
Leave a Comment:
This country needs to get over the class warfare! Listen people if you are going to blame a politician or some businessman's success for your failure. You are going to be poor and stupid for a long time. This occupy Wall Street crap has to be one of the most miss guided events I've seen since the Hope and Change promise of 2008. Let's elect a better leader in 2012. I'm sure there a re better candidates than we have seen from the left, right, middle , democrats, republicans independents etc. We just have to stop letting these people believe it's somebody elses responsibility for our lot in life!
Bending the working class over further is considered class warfare?
If that's the case, you can call me a PROUD warrior!
Stick a silver spoon in the current flavor of the month - he's DOA!
Who is Miss Guided?
I have no problem with the 9% income tax. It is the sales tax that is a problem. It is regressive. People with a lower income would a higher % of their income in taxes then people with a higher income. Add in investment income to the 9% requirement and we might have a plan worth talking about.
Herman tried to brainwash folks!
999 nine, nine, nine........9 9 9......
Once feisty actually realizes - yet it may be years away - that you cannot solve our problems by just taxing the rich, we may be able to advance as a society.
Class warfare is what is being waged on this country by the republicons.
As in: protecting the wealthy with tax cuts and loop holes, allowing corporations to play a major part in campaign dollars (undisclosed of course), and cutting money for public services that the wealthy wouldn't dream of using, but who ends up paying for the cuts?
All the while claiming that it is the democrats that are engaging in class warfare.
But that's the republicon MO: loudly proclaim that it is others that are guilty of what they themselves do.
@ Feisty,
Ive been on here for a little while now and I can probably count the number of times I agree with you on one hand....this is one of them.
Cains plan is class warfare, intentional or not. It kills people in the lower income bracket. How anyone can not see that an additional 9% tax on EVERYTHING affects those in the lower income brackets because it is a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their salary.
For the record, I'm still not ready for the millionaires tax...I just wish they would close the loopholes first and see what that does...THEN look at raising taxes.
Lastly, I am under the impression a Happy Birthday is in order. Hope you enjoyed it.
Mr. Cain likes commercial jingos. He can advertise his latest book,
"'For only $9.99,
The great GOPTP corporate/multinational hoodwinking of the 99%."'
Puh Lease--can you give me the cuts in public services funded by the federal government because the recent budget just was closed and from the spending, it appears there were no cuts but significant increases in public spending. As for the 9% VAT tax on everyone, its easy to fix guys. You can exempt the tax on food, health, shelter (rent) etc which would eliminate the cost on the poor. You can fix the regressive aspect, its the impact on consumer demand and the price for products that would hurt. I suppose its possible with the decrease in the corporate tax rate, businesses could compete more effectively and offset the cost of the sales tax on the products with a lower cost but I dont believe it. This tax adds $4,500 to a price of a $50,000 car. Big purchases alone were dramatically impacted by the luxury tax imposed already and this would impact across the board.
9 9 9 can lick my a**
Why thank you Govt_Issue!
Us agreeing on something is the best present a girl could get! ;o)
Don't listen to this guy, he is a troll. He is barely coherent in anything he posts. How come raising taxes is OK in this case when the right says over and over that raising taxes is class warfare?
Well...just be thankful you don't live in Canada!
zkysr - It is not OK to raise the taxes on the wealthy. But it is ok to raise it on the poor and middle class.
Brendan - 4
Feisty probably realizes that you can't solve all the problems by taxing the rich; she also knows you can't do it by just taxing the poor.
Oh yea DOA, you meant dead man walking didn't you Fiesty, you gotta admit Obama is no Jimmy Carter lol. Just think witch ever one of these Republicans wins the election next year gets the pleasure of repealing a BFD and a young Vice President from Florida or Texas will say thats a really, really BFD lol :)
Go figure. A study by the Tax Policy Center comes out against Cain. I'm sure the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute have nothing to to with elitists like Nelson Rockefeller or Nelson Strobridge Talbot III. Oh wait...
More establishment BS fed to the great unwashed.
Notice it's only a "study" on wages and not profits.
Gee, I wonder why the "Tax Policy Center" wouldn't want a flat tax to become policy?
Makes them pretty much obsolete doesn't it?
Can we have big oil do a "study" on solar energy too? (sarcasm)
Another advertising gimmick to hide what is really going on. The Republicans want to distract the voters from their dark little secret. There is not enough income tax revenue collected to pay for discretionary spending. That problem has nothing to do with entitlements - discretionary spending does not include entitlements. The Republicans like to spin entitlements into the mix - but that has absolutely nothing to do with income taxes.
To illustrate the point, look at the 2009 data. 2009 is the most recent published IRS income tax statistics.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html
For the 2009 tax year, there was $7.5 trillion in taxable income (AGI) reported. The discretionary spending for 2009 was $1.7 trillion. To balance that spending level - all taxable income needs to be taxed at 23%.
Income taxes generated in 2009 was $0.95 trillion. The effective tax rate for all income in 2009 was 11.5% - roughly half the required amount to pay for the discretionary budget. The government is not collecting enough revenue to support its spending level. To eliminate the deficit through spending cuts means the discretionary budget needs to be cut by 44% ($750 billion). That size reduction is more than the defense budget. Defense spending accounts for about 50% of the discretionary budget.
The 2009 IRS tax statistics also shows that the bottom 72% of returns accounted for 38% of all the taxable income (translates to taxable income of $37k). The top 28% of returns accounted for 62% of all taxable income (translates to $154K). The top quarter received four times the income of the bottom three quarter.
That's the dark Republican secret - it is not possible to balance the budget by just taxing the bottom three quarters of tax filers AND it is not possible to cut discretionary spending without drastically cutting defense.
Once brendan realizes that we can't solve the country's roblems by taxing the poor, we will unfortunately have already gone bankrupt, reinstated poor farms, and witnessed the thorough decline of what was once the greatest nation on earth. Tax cuts for the rich, personhood for corporationsand Bush's deregulation of industry have brought this country to its knees. Still these people want us to give away more.
Cain is not serious about being president. He's much too intelligent and experienced to think the 9-9-9 plan will ever fly and is anything but a nail-in-the-coffin for a serious campaign. (I may be projecting here.)
Reflect on it a moment folks. If he were serious, he would have let it go a long time ago.
Exactly what his motivation is, is a total mystery to me.
Is there some reason poor people - whoever the heck they are - shouldn't pay some income tax?
Herman Cain's campaign is a major hoodwinking for voters of all classes. Not even Mr. Cain is so inept that he actually believes this 9-9-9 plan is viable. So what is his motivation? I agree hs321...something smells like bad cheese with this debacle. Beware of the GOP!
@RetREMF
If you go to the library (you know that place in town with all the books) and get a copy of an ECON 101 text book. Open to the page that describes "Economies of Scale" and have someone read you that chapter and your question will be answered. Then take your crayons and coloring book and continue to color pretty pictures.
@Elise, SF
"zkysr - It is not OK to raise the taxes on the wealthy. But it is ok to raise it on the poor and middle class."
That's my point exactly. It is not. I believe we should only tax the wealthy and large corporations including myself and give incentives to folks to take risks and innovate so they can eventually pay taxes when they succeed.
UAW Pleeeeeeeease is the biggest troll on these boards.
Wait, isn't this exactly what we have been saying? This is the Koch brothers dream! More for them, pittance for everyone else. When are you "teabaggers" going to understand that these people are not your friends?
It doesn't matter that 9-9-9 is being exposed for the POS that it is -- You watch, conservatives will continue to defend it.
I'm still waiting to see the CBO score the Teapublican "Jobs Bill" otherwise known as failed legislation bundled together, and that has nothing to do with jobs.
In the meantime, conservatives are standing with the Teapublican leadership to block the REAL jobs plan, otherwise known as the president's Job Act. There is no vaccination to prevent simpletons from being irrational, and if you try to talk sense to them, it will cause mental retardation.
Well...I don't consider people like Obama, Reid and Pelosi my friends...
These are the ones funding Cain.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
What you also seem to gloss over is the fact that they also gave a combined $170 MILLION dollars to philanthropic projects... Did you read that part??
The Koch brothers will be in the white house with Cain. That will be bad for all of us middle class people.
"Cause"??
Only the wealthy would benefit. And this is shockingly surprising news?
He's a Republican!!!!! Of course anything he suggests will only benefit the Wealthy!!!!
If this surprised you.
Stop watching Faux News.
Read something other than the WSJ and other conservative rags.
Stop listening to Rush Lintballs and Glenn Beck.
Start attending a church that tells you that you're well off because God loves rich people, that's why they're rich.
Go volunteer at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter to reset your "breakers" because they are seriously tripped right now.
Remember if you're not part of the 1% now. You are never likely to be.
In the eyes of the people who control the country (Rich, corporations, politicians, ect.) you are nothing more than what Fido leaves after his morning walk.
Good Luck
That's quite a tax increase from the party who says they do not want to increase taxes, well at least they don't want to increase everybody's taxes. Wow Hermann we might have to see your math grades, you might have been an innocent victim of affirmative action, they said you were a rocket scientist but it seems you can't do arithmetic.
This "study" was done by a liberal hack group. The numbers are nonsense.
But of course the knee jerk response is to believe it, as many empty headed liberals are apt to do.
So today the story is millionaires will pay less, tomorrow the story is liberals screaming millionaires don't pay any taxes!
You ding dongs need to make up your minds.
Well Boehner said it was a bust and more importantly for republicans so did Grover Red Rover I'm Getting Over Norquest, Michele Bachmann was actually right the 999 plan went completely belly up and is turning into a devilish 666, for Cain.
Gee, I wonder why the "Tax Policy Center" wouldn't want a flat tax to become policy?
Makes them pretty much obsolete doesn't it?
Can we have big oil do a "study" on solar energy too? (sarcasm)
People criticize Herman Cain's 9-9-9 proposal as nonsensical, claiming it is just not plausible that the typical middle class family currently pays an average of $10,000 of federal taxes and citing some 'typical analysis' that tries to disprove Cain's statement, but let's look at the overall numbers;
In 2008, the Federal Government collected $2.5 Trillion in revenues, of which 93% was from income and payroll taxes = $2.325 Trillion.
In 2008, the top 10% (rich) paid 69.94% of all income taxes ($997 Billion) and about 20% of payroll taxes ($180 Billion), which accounts for about $1.177 Billion, which left $1.148 Trillion for the middle and poor classes. 47% of the (poor) people paid no federal income taxes and about 30% of the payroll taxes = $270 Billion. That leaves the middle class to pay the difference of $630 Billion.
There were 138 million tax returns filed, and if we take out the 10% (rich) and the 47% (poor), that leaves the 43% of families in the middle class (59.3 million) to pay the $630 Billion, which pencils out to an average of $10,624 of federal income and payroll taxes per average middle class family.
It would appear that Mr. Cain is pretty accurate in his figures. Of course, having a college degree in mathematics probably gives him an advantage over his 'critics'.
Roy,
You do always seem to have EVERYTHING figured out to match your way of thinking. must be nice to be so brilliant. However, if you will take the time to look at other studies of this plan (even from your side), they ALL say everyone but the rich will pay more in taxes. With no dividend or cap gains tax, the wealthy (who mostly make money this way) will see a huge cut while middle class will have an increase. Guess you think the wealthy will then go out and hire thousands of people with all their extra money. Cain is in bed with the Kochs and the Koch Bros ONLY support people who will make it even easier for them to rape the country. For the poster who was bragging the Kochs donated 120 Million.. well big Whoop. That is a drop in the bucket for them. Besides they probably only do it to further their interests. Sort of like AT&T giving money to charities to get them to write letters in support of the T-Mobile purchase....
Roy Wilson: There is a flaw in your logic. Wealthy people derive most of their income from capital gains not income tax. So how can they be paying as much 'income tax' as you claim.
Paul F: According to the IRS 40% of Americans make so little from actual work in and ENTIRE year that they have not tax liability (thus pay no income tax). Wealthy people derive most of their income from capital gains which is taxed at a lower rate than income tax. Those wealthy people that actually pay income tax offset that tax liability with loopholes that lower their effective tax far below the 35% they scream about.
WorkingPoor hit the nail right on the head when they stated 'Remember if you're not part of the 1% now. You are never likely to be.'
The wealthy have setup the system so that if you are not wealthy you are more likely than not to ever become wealthy. Ask yourself who can afford to keep $5,000 laying around in your CHECKING account to avoid having to pay bank fees, the average American family or the wealthy. Ask yourself if the wealthy are 'JOB CREATORS' then why do businesses need the middle class consumer?
After reading so many of the comments it is obvious there are alot of people who failed math in school. How pathetic. The article above is partison and fodder for the ignorant. Bunch of sheep. If the income tax rate is 9% on $10,000 of income that equates to $900 in tax. How can their taxes go up by $1,122? If someone makes $20,000 their tax would be $1,800. How can their taxes go up $2,705? If someone makes $30,000 their tax would be $2,700. How can their taxes go up $3,833? Or someone making a million their taxes go down by $500,000? Problem with the liberals is they want something for nothing. Keep it up and you will destroy this country and when you do who will take care of you then? We are becoming a nanny state and one way or the other all the federal debt that is piling up is going to be fixed, either by the politicians or the markets. Unsustainable and the clock is ticking.
The Koch brothers picked a black man to go up against Obama smart move for them bad for us. The Koch brothers think all Presidents are actors, they just gave Cain a script, and he's acting it out. Don't be fooled they will be running the white house calling the shots. All low income races will get a pay cut/lose benefits under them. Don't waste your vote on him, you'll be sorry later when your begging in the soup line.
Paul F/Roy Wilson/Rick:
The study goes thru each income bracket and TELLS what they'll be paying under the Cain plan. The amount taxes goes up includes the effect of the National Sales tax and the Corporate 9% tax rate (really a VAT tax). that's why you'll be paying more than your simple equation of just using the Cain income tax rate (9%) multiplied by their income.
The 9/9/9 plan was buried last night, and for proper reason. You all will just ignore any fact that doesn't support your view. You can't even be honest with a non-partisan study that's been confirmed over and over. you try to argue the results using Cain's innacurate logic.
You want to believe the Republicans care about the middle class and you're just plain wrong. Notice how the Republicans biggest argument is that the National Sales tax could be increased, they don't ever argue (except Romney) that it's bad for the middle class. We've seen it year after year after year and policy after policy after policy the Republicans come up with (i.e., vouchers for Medicare, Health savings accounts, tax cuts, retirement plans and Social Security - we'll give you a little voucher and let you fend for yourself, while they give the rich everythign they can and justify it with calling every rich person a "job-creator").
Why are Soros' millions of $$ not as bad as Kochs millions ??
Would appear that Nikki has something against black conservatives. Ohhh, and I suppose it's ok for millionaires in the WH as long as their on your side? Solyndra?
Duh. That's the whole point.
Paul: "liberal hack group"??? The Tax Policy Center is a creature of the Brookings Institute...if anything, identified as a "conservative" leaning think tank. Rick: After that post you really ought not claim others clearly failed grade school. Read and try again.
Isn't it funny how the republicans spend DECADES enacting every policy they can think of that helps the rich and hurts everyone else -- and then they turn around and tell the 99% of us that AREN'T rich that we are engaging in "class warfare" when we complain?
I'd give this one the old facepalm but the only one that would fit this would be one hard enough to break my nose.
This is to Paul and all the other wingnuts whose reflex response is always to blame the "liberal media" every time an article appears that doesn't say what they want it to say. You call the Tax Policy Center a "liberal hack group." Before spouting off your nonsense and ultimately making yourself look like an ignorant fool, why don't you do a little research? The Tax Policy Center, for your information, is a non-partisan group founded by tax experts who served in the Clinton Administration, THE GEORGE H. W. BUSH Administration, and the REAGAN Administration.
Duh!
The question I have is the tax on food? He states nothing sold used gets taxed. Is cooked considered used? Does this mean that now we pay tax on Papa Murphy's (uncooked) and no tax on Godfather's (cooked). How about regurgitated food like honey? Or pasteurized and homogenized? Will this answer be another "I have no idea!" moment like Apple computers were for him.? If I purchase a meal and later throw up at the restaurant will I be taxed because of it?
No tax is it's used food! lol
How do I buy a used gallon of gasoline?
Norquist is on CNN saying the 999 plan is not good. Doesn't pass the revenue neutral test as it increases taxes on some.
Would that apply to day-old bread? The gasoline is tough because once oil is refined we don't even know where it came from. If I was rich enough to have a team of accountants, I'm sure I could find away around it all.
If, the Koch brothers get Cain elected, you guys will get your benefits cut. The poor will get the minimum benefits. There goes yous food stamps & Medicaid.
If there's no tax on used food, does that mean we no longer have to pay for sewage?
Apparently Norquist is now saying if its revenue neutral he will support it! Totally not what he was saying earlier on CNN. Will try to find tape. He said earlier it was bad as it would open the tax streams up to higher rates in future. Will try to get this straight.
How to save a bundle: take a test drive in the new car you are about to purchase - it is now used!!! Oh, I'm sure that Cain can write millions of words to legislate each particular definition of "used", but wasn't he talking about eliminating millions of words by eliminating the current tax code? Present simplicity to a simpleton (teabrains) and they'll buy into it.
Below is link to interview, although he states he didn't like it he says any plan should be revenue neutral overall. Now according to CNN after debates he is walking back his dislike of the plan and would support it??? Not sure what is going on.
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/10/18/ebof-grover-norquist.cnn
The biggest drawback to sales tax is this. The price you pay for any item includes the actual real cost of that item and profit. You don't get the profit, the manufacturer and the sellers do. Yet as the consumer, you pay the tax on the profit too. Seem fair to anyone? When the supplier makes higher profit, you'll pay higher tax.
So the Koch brothers found themselves a man who would shill for them? The numbers are correct. Now, we can have fun watching and listening to the conservative republicans lie and distort the numbers. Wouldn't be surprised to hear sworn witnesses tell of Cains transcendent reality.
What's truly pathetic is progressives talk as if there are not millions of $$ (Soros ?) advocating for their positions. And that is as intellectually dishonest as they charge others are. I hear the pot calling the kettle.
You can give Grover a suggestion here:
http://action.constitutionalprogressives.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5449
Gridlockgrover.com
RetREMF,
I don't think you will find too many Progressives denying that Soros and other wealthy progressive thinkers are spending money to advocate for their positions. The difference is about the positions and who stands to benefit. Soros is not going to get wealthier by the positions he advocates for, unlike the Koch brothers. Soros does not attempt to hide his contributions and is publicly vocal about it. The Koch brothers on the other hand want their money to talk for them and they would much prefer to quietly hide behind the scenes.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that the Koch brothers are making investments when they contribute to the policies they advocate. They are clearly positioned to gain financially if they get their way. That is simply not the case with Soros. Even the right wing loonies like Glenn Beck can't make a financial gain connection, but instead claim it is about a "God Complex" and having "power". They try to make some connection to some mystical ideological socialist conspiracy, but can produce no logic as to why a wealthy individual would want such a thing, expecting to somehow benefit from it. It makes zero sense. The Koch brothers' motives on the other hand are very clear and logical. It is about greed and financial gain.
To equate Soros to the Koch brothers is insane. Yes they are both wealthy and they both make contributions to political positions. But that is where the similarities end. The real difference is in those positions they take and how they stand to be impacted by them. Progressives are quite happy that we have a few wealthy people like Soros, Buffet, Gates and a handful of celebrities who will speak out for the causes of the common man. Without their voices and their money, we would be trampled by the wealthy right wing who are all about getting wealthier. The common man is priced out of this game and thankfully there are a handful of wealthy people who support the positions of the common man. The only payback for these folks is seeing fairness and equality being overriding principles. They are using their wealth based on principle, instead of using their wealth to make more wealth.
Hey's there a real shock.
About as shocking as big oil releasing it's own study saying that green energy is more expensive than oil.... totally expected.
Pjam: obviously you're looking for an excuse to discount the study because you don't like it's findings. You'll have to find another one. It's a Brooking Institute independent tax anaysis group which if anything has been accused of having conservative ties. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.
You may have heard this phrase being mentioned a lot in the GOP Debates: "Let the free market decide."
Their "invisible hand," decided to rig the American economy to favor their self-serving wealthy ...at the expense of everyone else.
So you have to give rich people like Cain some credit for marketing his '9-9-9 Plan,' ...to get his non-wealthy supporters to vote against their own interests.
The only hands here are KING grovers & his JESTERS, the koch brothers around the balls of the republican/teabagger party & Herman Cain. Makes you wonder just how tight!
This finding has me shocked and awed that a Republican candidate would suggest legislation that would shaft the poor-middle class and benefit people who are doing fine.
I'm even more shocked the amount of sarcasm in my above sentence didn't cause the internet to implode.
At least the conservatives are becoming more truthful in the ways that they want to screw everyone except the wealthy.
here here....they are so doomed next year....we have so much material to use against them right now it is crazy....its hard to know where to start
Obama is going to win big that is forgone conclution....now the question is how do we win congress and the states back so big that the rightwing riechwing lunatics just dig a hole and never come out
The Left has been silent for thirty years. But like those cicadas that come out of the ground every couple of decades, the Left is going to be heard now. Hopefully, there will be less drugs and less taking over university administration buildings. Unlike the movement of the late 60's and early 70's, the Left might actually obtain the approval of the vast middle (the silent majority that Nixon spoke of). Cain's 9-9-9 is obviously another attempt to make the poor vote against its own interest. (There are just too many talented people with computers these days to sucker even dumb voters with such a scam.) The voters are beginning to wise up. What the Tea Party did in Wisconsin is beginning to resonate. The Tea Party wants to kill unions, hurt government employees, and make everybody else work for peanuts (and without healthcare) so that a few uber capitalists can have decadent parties with naked servants and ice statues that urinate champagne. There IS ABSOLUTELY NO COMPASSION FOR ANYBODY IN THE TEA PARTY. And, over time, America is just not that mean. America is intrigued with Occupy Wallstreet. America is already tired of the Tea Party.
As an aside, Jerry Brown, a democrat, ran for President with something almost exactly like the 9-9-9 plan, a flat tax, back in the early 1990s. He lost the primaries to Clinton for other reasons but this idea is hardly new and was embraced by democrats in the 1990s.
I am not defending the plan yet as I, like everyone else, do not have all the details and refuse to make an uninformed judgement on the plan. Still, I felt like pointing out that this plan has had support by democrats in the past needed to be said because the 9-9-9 plan is not an original idea.
It was a stupid plan then and it's a stupid plan now. Happy?
Thank you. Just because factions of the Democratic party participate in impoverishing the middle and working class, doesn't make me feel any better about the Republicans doing the same, just worse about the Democrats.
JRS, I would hardly call an idea pushed by the nut job Brown as being "supported
by Democrats.... If it were popular, we would have President Brown. The bunch of baffoons running this year is amazing. Really sad they are "the best of the best" of the Republican party....
you people are really good at name-calling aren't you.
"kill unions" "hurt government employees"......and what about the vast majority of us workers who do not fall into either of those categories....when our tax dollars pay for the unions to offer golden parachutes every bit as obscene as anything on Wall Street, that hurts the working guys. If I pay 10% of my income into a 401K program faithfully, I might have one or two years of income available to me at retirement and after the tax penalty taken out when I withdraw it, but if I worked in a government job and paid only 8% of my income into the pension program, I would be entitled to a pension that almost rivalled my working salary for the rest of my days.....that is fair? One block and seven of the houses are paying taxes so that the guy who worked for the state highway commission can have a grand retirement....all those people in the other seven houses worked hard too, just not for the government and not for the union. Ever since I was a kid, I have listened to the people who have union jobs complain about evil big business. They never once recognize that they are often better paid than their non-union counterparts who do the exact same work. They never acknowledge that they are fortunate to have the income and benefits that they enjoy, and when you point out to them that the guy down the street does the exact same work for less money and benefits, the union guys will sneer and say that it is because the guy down the street is stupid and if he were smart, he would have a union job too....The brainwashing is definitely on the left.
Just goes to show that people give too much credit to congressmen and the like for knowing what the hell they're talking about, although in this case I think it's deception camouflaged in a catchy easy to remember number pattern. And maybe this will highlight the fact that we talked about Palin and Bachmann's ignorance because they were actually pretty stupid. Not because of the so-called liberal media.
What I can't figure out is why so many middle class Republicans continue to support the radical agenda of the teabaggers when that agenda is so clearly against their best interests.
Because they live in a fantasy world where facts and reality isn't welcome. If it comes from the media, even if they are reporting a study from a non-partisan source, it must be biased and therefore they can dismiss it entirely. They seem to never once consider the possibility that the analysis might actually be correct.
Furthermore, they can just always fall back on the "reducing government" argument, so that even though you pay more taxes, everything will become cheaper and we'll be so much more prosperous that the extra in taxes won't matter.
There was a former Reagan economic adviser, can't remember his name, who said the 999 plan was backward with no reason to think it would stimulate growth or have any positive effect at all. If they would just listen to these conservative leaders from the past, they'd get an unbiased view from conservatives that warn what a bad plan this is.
They don't bother to do it though, because they don't even trust former Reagan officials.
What I can't figure out is why so many middle class Democrats continue to support the failed economic agenda of the Pelosi/Reid controlled Congress that was put on spending steriods when Barak was elected. Do these people not understand that without a THRIVING Private Sector (that Dems continue to destroy with increasing taxes & regs) the wheels fall off the government because of falling tax revenues.
Florida Dem, it's called the "Laffer Curve". It has been proven that when tax RATES are Raised over a certain point that tax REVENUE Goes Down.
Florida Dem.,
They don't trust Reagan's economists because Reagan would fall to the left of President Obama today. Republican have sold their souls to the corporations. They are slowly disappearing and trying very hard to take the middle class down with them. And if middle class liberals don't wake up, all our elected leaders, democrat or republican, will be to the right of Reagan.
That spending was needed to stave off a Republican caused depression. You're welcome.
ssmithlg,
I know about the Laffer curve. However, we are WAY below the point where tax revenues go up when tax rates go down. When Clinton raised rates, revenues went up and the economy strengthened. When Bush lowered rates, revenues went down and the economy went to hell.
In both of those cases, taxes were just one component and maybe not the driving factor. However, prosperity and growth and revenues were much higher in the 50's and 60's where top marginal tax rates were 70-90%. When Reagan cut taxes on the rich rates were really high at the top, but now they are much, much lower.
There is a point where tax revenues drop when rates drop, and we are there now.
ssmithlg: huh... actually you're probably exactly right about the "Laffer Curve", I don't know the specifics of this, I'm just going on what you said, but what you said is what I've thought was true for a long time.
So the higher we tax the rich, the lower the tax returns, guess that money probably goes to there companies, they use it to hire people and invest into there business, give there employees more raises and benefits to attract better talent.
Good call, let's raise there taxes.
Florida Dem, when Clinton raised rates he also dramatically reduced the capital gains rate and virtually all the additional revenue was as a result of a tax decrease not increase. Its also isnt true that revenue went down with the Bush tax cuts, they actually dramatically increased. The Laffer curve has been very accurate over a long period of time.
Florida dem.....I think you better check your facts. When Bush lowered the rates, revenues went up, by record amounts. Revenues also went up when Clinton cut taxes as well. Clinton tax increase was also preceded by a tax decrease for corporations. I do think we are at the point where lowering personal income tax will not help much, but lowering corporate tax rates and removings loopholes would help immensely.
ssmithlg - Are you kidding me? Supply side economics has been tried over the past 30 years and the results are in. Top 1% of income bracket now controls 40% of GDP. The rich have never been this rich before...so congratulations on a great experiment. Unfortunately American workers have been sacrificed for the sake of the top 1%, and there is a problem here. It's called DEMAND. You know, the other side of supply side? When you destroy middle class income you destroy demand...destroying the economy. Unless of course you invest in foreign markets. If you like so many of the top 1% are done with the American people and are now looking to obtain wealth from ... oh ...say ... the Chinese market then you're on the right track.
"When they show you who they are...believe them!"
Actually, the middle class has never been this rich before either (well both were richer in 2007). The lowest skilled people have suffered, but the average worker has benefited from supply side economics.
Real wages are back where they were in 1999. What are you talking about?
No, real wages are approximately where they were in the early 80's. The growing split in this country between the rich and poor now approaches Brazil. There really isn't any informed debate about these realities. The only interesting discussion is how, or whether, to change this state of affairs.
Sorry to have interrupted your fantasy with reality. But it is bracing, I hope.
Obama 2012!!!
PutAmericaFirst, it's you who might want to check your facts. Middle class wages have declined for the last decade.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/21/news/economy/middle_class_income/index.htm
The decline started when Bush got into office. It accelerated down again when the Republicans took back the House.
So when 90% of people see roughly 10% of their disposable income go away.....
How will this help the economy?
I'm top 5% in income but I'm not going to buy 10 more TVs or 5 more cars or eat out 6 meals a day to be able to help out businesses that are losing consumers to this tax increase.
The assumption is that prices will be lowered, so they can afford more.
One of the assumption Cain makes is that with costs lowered across the board, corporations would lower their prices, otherwise the markets would force them out of business. That would be true if every corporation wasn't pricing everything exactly the same...it's called collusion. No company is going to lower prices when they have a chance to keep them high along with their competitors. Price breaks are NEVER passed along to the consumer.
Prices will be lowered as the economy crashes.
Corporations lowered their costs by switching to 23 cents an hour labor and the prices have only went up.
Notice how this single study - which is entirely undiscussed by the reporter, whose article features no response from Cain or economists who like it - does not address the fact that the Cain plan would radically drop the costs of basic goods by removing hidden taxes and b) that the present highly-progressive tax system has stifled the economy by taking money from the productive sector and plowing it into the more wasteful systems of government. This should not have gone out past the editors in this form, and is thus revealing of a certain bias.
Taxes are lower now than they've ever been.
Sorry but taxes are a fact of life, missles and bombs don't grow on trees.
What kool-aid are you drinking?
Yes, a simpler tax system would be better than what we have now. However, a regressive, but simple, tax system would be a disaster for much of the populations and the economy as a whole.
I suppose you also believe the (discredited), but widely-touted claim that regulations are inherently bad for the economy
"highly progressive tax system"? "First, the progressivity of the U.S. federal tax system at the top of the income distribution has declined dramatically since the 1960s. Average
federal tax rates for the middle class have remained roughly constant over time.
This dramatic drop in progressivity at the upper end of the income distribution is due primarily to a drop in corporate taxes and to a lesser extent estate and gift 22 Journal of Economic Perspectives
taxes, both of which fall on capital income, combined with a sharp change in the composition of top incomes away from capital income and toward labor income"
interestingly, we had plenty of growth before the 80s, in fact, more growth when the tax system was more progressive.
I love when the RWNJ's kiss up to their corporate overlords by implying that any savings by said corporations due to the new tax system would of course be passed onto the consumer...are you f*&#ing kidding me? There is no way any of those companies are going to refund any of that 'hidden' tax back to us, and you are delusional if you think they will.
"does not address the fact that the Cain plan would radically drop the costs of basic goods by removing hidden taxes"
I don't understand how anyone could possibly believe that any business would pass along tax savings by LOWERING their prices!! The cost of basic goods do not go down. After this crappy economy, businesses will bank their tax savings for a rainy day, or pass on the savings to their stock holders. The lower & middle class won't see lower prices.
Vermont.....The effective tax rates for the rich have not dropped significantly in the past 70 years or so. They have dropped, but by a smaller amount than the effective tax for the middle class and the poor. You shouldn't look at the actual rate. You should look at the effective tax rate which includes all the loopholes. The effective tax rate shows what they actually paid.
What mysterious taxes are going to disappear that will lower the prices of goods? He couldn't name them. The only way that would occur is if we already had a sales/VAT and that was eliminated. But Cain is actually proposing a new sales/VAT tax.
Right now businesses only pay taxes on profit. Not on revenue or cost of goods sold.
In the interview he also was dismissing any existing sales taxes as irrelevant. But in many places the sales tax would be 15%+.
Just more hocus pocus economics from someone who will say anything to get elected. But if your stupid, sign right up to have your money and government services taken away by the wealthy.
Who exactly do you consider the "productive sector"? Wall Street? The Banks? Those who sit around the pool waiting for the dividend check? Do you actually believe people will believe your dribble after 30 years of "trickle-down economics"? The word is out, the experiment failed...supply side economics doesn't work! The job creators are not job creators. Only DEMAND creates jobs and you T-Publican types are working overtime to destroy the middle-class...thereby destroying demand.
Come on people, the word is "drivel", not "dribble". You can look it up.
PutAmericaFirst, I can only assume you get your information from Fox because it's sadly mistaken. Tax rates for the rich are at an all time low. When Reagan took office, the tax rate on the Rich was at 50%. When Dwight Eisenhower was in office in 1953, the tax rate on the rich was at 91%. It is now at 38% under Obama. I don't know about you but I would consider a 53% tax cut on the rich in the last half century to be 'significant'.
http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449
DJ ... but, if you go back to 50 years before Eisenhower, there were no income taxes. So, the tax increase in that half of that century was infinite, on a percentage basis! In that context, a 50% tax cut isn't so much.
But, you're comparing apples to oranges. Before Reagan changed the tax system, there were a far larger number of deductions (personal / credit card interest, for example) that brought down the effective tax rate. In return for lowering the tax rates, many of the deductions were eliminated or capped. So, the tax cut isn't as large as you might think.
I agree, it is fallacy to think that corporations will cut prices if taxes go down. Why should they? We've also got to remember that a large portion of our manufactured goods are made partially or entirely overseas, where the tax change will have zero impact. The price of imported goods will not go down.
"The Tax Policy Center has released its analysis of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, and it finds that the only people who would benefit from it are those making more than $200,000 a year."
And Cains responce to that would probably be "And the problem is?"
We don't know what Cain's response is because the Democratic shills at MSNBC didn't bother to write a balance article presenting both viewpoints or fully discussing the entire matter of the plan presented. The article was written with a clear slant by someone that has clear agenda to scare away any possible support from Herman Cain.
Nice try but it wasn't their analysis. You should stick with what you know "keep your govment out of my social security".
We don't know what Cain's response is because...he hasn't responded. This study just came out yesterday, NPR rna a story on it last night, and I've been waiting all day for a Cain response.
I'm predicting something like:
"If you only make $10K or $20K a year, of course I'm going to increase your tax as an incentive for you to get up and get a job. It's all your fault you're paying more tax. Get rich and you'll pay less. You may call it unfair, I call it tough love."
Sure, if you just put your mind to it, you can all be above average.
Actually, his response will be the same one that his campaign has issued all along. He'll point out that the 9% VAT will only apply to NEW goods. The poor can buy used goods, which will let them avoid that part of the tax.
I find it troubling when a new organization publishes an article like this based on limited knowledge drawing conclusions in which are uninformed. There are additional details that have not yet been released on the plan. Why do an analysis on something when you do not have all the information?
MSNBC: Please explain this article. Other news organizations have interviewed some more advisors to Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan. There has been talk about empowerment zones and how businesses and individuals that live or work in these zones are not subject to the 9-9-9 tax.
There was also an interview on FoxNews (now, the network does not matter because this guy has been saying this on other networks as well...)
According to Former Reagan economic adviser Arthur Laffer just interviewed on the news:
Anyone at or below the poverty level is exempt from paying all three taxes.
So, with that, it does not hit the poor like the news has been saying it does. Is it true, I don't know. I don't have the details. But I would like for a news organization to look into this and verify it because he said he did know those details about the 9-9-9 plan and that's worth looking into at least to authenticate the fact or refute it.
Before anyone disagrees with me, I am just the messenger relaying what I saw and heard in an interview. And Laffer was one of the people that Herman Cain consulted when coming up with the 9-9-9 plan so he should know what he was talking about.
The part in the above video link that reflects what I said starts at 1:30 into the video. He says if you read the details of the plan, they have exempted everyone below the poverty level of paying ANY of the three 9-9-9 taxes....that includes the sales tax.
I am interested in the details on how they will do this but apparently, according to one of the economists who was consulted on it and knows about it, that is part of the plan. I don't know if this is true, I just am writing what I heard on the news.
Here is the interview on Fox News (sorry MSNBC but I check out all news sites...FOX, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and try to balance it out)...
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1222147494001/would-cains-999-plan-work/?playlist_id=86858
All I ask for is honest reporting. If information exists which contradicts your article, address it instead of ignoring it. Dig into the details and do not make uninformed conclusions. I wish some news organization would check out all this information and give us a straight article on it because for Average Joe citizen to have to wade through all this muck that the news organizations muddy the waters with just to find the truth takes up a lot of time but unfortunately is necessary so that we as citizens may make informed choices when voting in the next election.
Now that's rich - you post a Faux News link & follow up with requesting honest reporting!!!
LMAO!
Have you ever heard of the fox guarding the hen house?
Then why doesn't that idiot Cain release the complete plan? If this isn't the complete plan, why the hell does he campaign on it?
Sorry, that's his own damn fault. It isn't the fault of anyone who might want to understand what plan they are actually supporting when they vote for Cain. If he is going to run on it as a signature item, he should at least have his act together well enough to make it clear so people can evaluate it.
Wasn't the Laffler Curve widely shown to be a fallacy? Now, you're using him as your expert to support 9-9-9!!!!!!!
Of course all you can say about the post, Fiesty, is that a disparaging remark about Fox News. Never mind the post referenced other networks as well. As if MSNBC is so balanced. I think the way the article was written shows the bias here at First Read!
I don't know if it is true or not.
I don't know why almost none of the candidates have their complete plan posted on their website and released to the public.
I posted the Fox news link because that I where I knew he definitely said it.
I am unaware if he had inside information on details of the 9-9-9 plan.
I am not supporting 9-9-9. If you read carefully, I do not want to support nor refute anything if I do not have all the details. That is just how I am. I real life, I am a scientists and do not draw conclusions on a hunch or feelings, I have to wait until all the evidence is in and then make an informed judgement. (Though many scientists seem to forget that...but that is why science itself is a self-correcting field because bad ideas won't stay around for long though they do get out there.)
My whole point was that if you have some people saying it is good. Some it is bad. Some saying the poor will not be taxed at all. Some saying that they will be hit the hardest. And, many times that is all said on the same news network...yet the details are not released, it seems like we are just spinning our wheels. I would just err on the side of caution and wait for details and then make an informed conclusion rather than be ignorant of other facts and choose not to follow up on them because they disagree with your pre-determined conclusion.
Well, if Cain can't get the details out, and the plan isn't as bad as it appears to be based on the facts he's released, then that's his own damn fault. If he is going to release a specific detailed plan, then the details better be communicated or everyone else will fill in the blanks for him.
If you don't define yourself and your plan as a candidate, then don't be surprised when everyone else does. Forget about the media and liberals, the conservatives in the race will pile on 999 now that Cain is polling so well.
It's his own damn fault, can't say I feel sorry for him if he is that incompetent.
All these plans should be looked at as starting points for future discussion. A president doesn't have the power to push through anythign without it being modified by congress. I like the foundations of the 9-9-9 plan much more than the current tax code. This takes power out of the congress and will reduce congresses ability to give into lobbyists. I would like to see food exempt and income up to the poverty line exempt. After that, it seems pretty fair.
If this puts more money in the hands of corporations and corporations are people, my friend (Citizens United); how exactly does having more cash in their pockets limit lobbying?
It is amazing that some are now citing Arthur Laffer as an authority, when he was so thoroughly discredited so long ago. Bush-pere got it right when he denounced Supply Side Economics and the Laffer Curve as Vodoo Economics. All we got from its implementation was a quadrupling of the national debt under Reagan and doubling again when Bush-fils overturned Clinton's reversal of it. Oh, yes, we also got a masive redistribution of wealth to the upper income folks, while the middle class saw their average compensation actually decline when adjusted for inflation. By all means., let's bring back the Laugher Curve (yes, the spelling is intentional).
I think you'll find that Cain's description of the plan does not exclude anyone below the poverty line. The "expert" he hired to come up with the plan had that cut-off, but Cain left it out. And Cain's plan, unlike a typical state sales tax, applies the sales tax to all food items.
The only thing not taxed are used items. So the rich get to buy new items and when they are tired of them, the rest of us can buy them through their agents without any sales tax. Now, isn't that advocating a class system? New clothes for the rich and rags for the poor.
Cain should drop 9-9-9, and change his slogan to "A pizza in every pot."
Frankly, I doubt that any such statement was made. How could it? One of those nines refers to the corporate income tax. Individuals don't pay it, so how could they be exempt from it? Another 9% is a sales tax. It would have to be collected from everyone, then some system devised to rebate it to those under a certain income level at the end of the year. Would they have to keep receipts?
You can doubt that the statement was made as much as you want. Just watch the video at the link provided starting at 1:30. The statement is made.
I don't know how it could be implemented or if it is true though Laffer said that he had seen the details of the plan and that it was true which is why I wanted a news organization to vet this information thoroughly and say yes or no. This article seemed to avoid the details and my point was to bring attention to conflicting information that the news is reporting.
JRS: you seem to be having trouble with the idea that MSN would carry news on a report on a study IT DIDN'T DO. That's what news organizations do. Report. On News. The Brookings Institute affiliated TAX Policy Center issued the actual study. Get it?
Used food? Cain's motto for the poor... "Let them eat sh!t."
Why aren't the attacks on Cain deemed "racist" by the media? Oh that's right, he's a Republican. The fact is, ANYONE who believes there is more than ONE race (the Human Race) is RACIST! All your ethnic groups, nationalities, tribes, etc. are just different people groups. But they are All One Race-HUMAN.
How is this an attack on Cain? This article is an assessment of the impact of his 999 tax plan. The fact that it looks so terrible is just the facts speaking.
Because they are not being made by racist teapublicans? Just guessing.
Because they are not attacking his race...only his stupid ideas. And that has nothing to do with race...but keep trying. I'm sure your corporate masters will still pay you for your post.
Attacking his policy proposals is not racist. Its not even personal.
Nice try, but...
I've not seen a single attack on Cain that dealt with his race; merely with his policies. Not one case of any one asking for his birth certificate, or his college grades, or who his minister is, or who he has associated with beginning in kindergarten, or whether he played Little League Baseball or joined the Boy Scouts. No Congressman has called him a liar in public, or accused him of being a secret Muslim.
Notice, too, how this article does not take into account the enormous leap in prosperity under any kind of a less-progressive tax and how much better lower-income people do. Under the guise of reportage, we see a picture frozen, polarized, and personalized.
Still living in that trickle down economics fantasy world?
Oh yes, poor people are doing much better than they did under LBJ, or even Nixon for that matter. And the middle-class is so much better off than it was under Eisenhower....what world do you live in?
Dear Michael R. Brown,
Actually the article clearly explains the opposite will occur. Lower income people who spend almost everything they earn in necessities like food will pay a larger portion of their income than what they pay today. People who live in states with no sales tax will see their costs go up by 9%. May I suggest a reading comprehension class?
What are you referring to? You do know that Pres. Reagan raised taxes, right? As did GHW Bush, and Clinton. Oh, yeah that was a bad 20 years. GWB comes in and decides that running two wars at +$4 billion a month off the books, and a pharma give away, while cutting taxes is a good idea.
We did that for eight years and unwound every economic advance of 12 Republican and 8 Democratic administrative years.
I have my problems with Obama lately, but try to be serious. It is hard to overstate the damage that GWB did to the economy, and the time it will take to remedy it.
At Dartmouth, just last week, Cain proudly touted the simplicity of his 999 plan, inadvertently exposing the simplicity of his thinking. You saw that, right?
Explain that source of a "leap" in prosperity? Giving millionaires even more money will not increase their spending. Virtually every economist will agree on that point. On the other hand, giving someone making $25K-$50K a year more money virtually guarantees increased consumption, which does result in a boost to the economy.
Is anyone surprised by this?
This man is a former head of a Federal Reserve Bank and Godfather's CEO. They seldom mention his association with 'The Fed'.
WAKE UP PEOPLE.
Anyone that has a deep seeded hatred for the banks should be staying away from this guy like poison.
Wrong James. Cain merely served on the KANSAS regional fed board as an advisor. He had not authority even there except to make recommendations and he SURE as heck did not serve onthe NATIOANL Federal Reserve Bank.
I want to know how you manufactor used items.
I want to know how to get used food. Cain will tax new food. Maybe he thinks people should hang around rich people's dumpsters looking for left overs.
Left unsaid in the First Read's gleeful article:
The Tax Policy Center is a joint project of two liberal think tanks. Liberal. Liberal. liberal. liberal.
F a i l.
. . . soon to be quoted with glee by the other Republican's trying to derail the Cain express to disaster. Will you believe it then? Or are you among the right's insistently stupid?
This Republican-caused economic malaise, as reported elsewhere, has devastated the poor, the elderly, the young, home values, etc. Only the wealthy have done well. And that suits them just fine.
Then read this article, by Bruce Bartlett, who worked for Ron Paul amongst others:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/
Bill-Austin
Bachmann will quote it, but not where it came from. She'll say she "heard it somewhere".
Probably the same place she heard about Paul Revere "shooting those guns and ringing those bells".
. . . and the war on the poor continues unabated. Were you all expecting anything else?
You will NEVER make the Poor richer by making the Rich poorer. "Economic Justice" is a great sound bite......... for Marxists & socialists.
Billy - Boy, let's give it the full attribution it deserves ... the war on the poor, ignorant, lazy and dependent
Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.
"Benito Mussolini "
believenothing: let's start that war with you. You will not be collecting social security right? You won't be driving on any roads and your children will not be going to school and you will not be flying in any airports overlooked by any FAA or TSA employees? Good. I hope you stay on your island. Wouldn't want any more lazy ignorants dependent on handouts.
Nothing like having that "giant" of fair and impartial "journalism", MSNBC, bring out a report from a liberal "think tank" (although I have never actually seen liberal and think ever work together) in order to show how the "poor" will suffer and the "rich" won't.
Obama said EVERYONE "needs to have some skin in the game". To you on the left, that just means raise taxes on the so called "rich" while continuing to have HALF of this country pay nothing at all. Only a liberal would call that "everyone".
only a republican would ask someone making less than 40,000 to pay even more in taxes in a recession while giving the wealthier individuals a tax decrease. WTF is wrong with them
Then read the article from Bruce Bartlett that I link below for his analysis. They guy worked for Ron Paul.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/
47% of our citizens Pay NO Federal Income Tax at all. Spread the wealth? I say SPREAD The Tax Burden and make the government SPEND LESS !
Most people making less than $40,000 actually not only pay NOTHING in income taxes, but get back MORE than they paid in. And since they pay NOTHING, how is it such a hardship on them to actually pay SOMETHING?
And if you paid attention to HISTORY you'd find that every single time that taxes have been lowered on the so called "rich", employment goes up, and revenue collected by the government goes up. And that includes when it was done by the icon of all of you on the left, John Kennedy.
But don't let the FACTS get in the way of your propoganda.
you would also see that in history everytime we decrease taxes it is met with a substantial recession and crash. 1929 crash, preceeded by substantial tax decreases. 2008, preceeded by bush tax cuts. 1987, preceeded by reagan's cuts.
Republicans love to say that 47%dont pay income taxes.... well its because they make so little money to barely even get by! And they DO pay taxes, payroll taxes, gas tax and more. The difference is these taxes actaully acount for a larger percetange of their income than wealthy ppl because the payroll tax cut only applies to the first 106,000 $ a person makes. Poor ppl do pay taxes.
try not to let fox news govern your responses.
And you think raising taxes actually pulls us out of recessions?
What did we have under Roosevelt and his 76% and 90% tax rates? Why a DEPRESSION that lasted ten years, with unemployment going UP even further after those tax rates were imposed.
And under Reagan despite you trying to say we had some kind of terrible economy, interest rates went down by 75%, not counting the inflation that was caused by Democrats and Carter.
And under Bush after the tax cuts, the recession he inherited ENDED, unemployment went DOWN, and the government raised record revenues. It was ONLY because Democrats pushed CRA, sub-prime lending, and protected Fannie and Freddie as they committed fraud in the hundreds of billions of dollars while supporting the "housing bubble" that this economy crashed.
As Bush warned it would in 2003.
Again, don't let the FACTS get in the way of your propoganda.
Actually, Chery, the 90% top rate was during WWII to pay for the war. And, many people attribute that to the reason we got OUT of the depression.
The depression started well before the rates were raised that high on the wealthy. The high rates certainly didn't cause the Great Depression.
CherylLM
I hope you realize that the great depression began at least 3 years before Roosevelt came into office, was a result of policies and events that happened before 1929-1930 and actually eased up a great deal between 1933 and 1937. If Reagan suffered from the consequences of Jimmy Carters actions, and Bush "inherited a recession (still laughing at that one) then how would Roosevelt be the cause of a depression that began some 3 years prior to his presidency, and the economy actually improved the first 4 years he was in office? The great depression was far more complicated than "this person caused it", and your assertion that policies put in place at least 3 years after it began were the cause of it, at a time when the economy began to rebound, tells me your grasp of history is a bit skewed by your political bend. I wouldn't doubt that you actually believe that Roosevelt was the cause of the depression, probably caused by listening to too much Fox news and people like Ann Coulter.
The 47% who pay no federal tax are largely made up of the elderly, disabled, students, and of course the working poor (they don't have health insurance either). So quit with this stupid Faux news talking point.
You seem to mean by "spread" the tax burden; increase taxes and sacrifice on the poor and middle class and leave the "job creators" (top 1%, who create no jobs) alone.
Thats a laugh, people making 40k or less pay no taxes. What a crock.
Good try, those of you trying to educate poor Cheryl. Hopeless though. She would have to have enough IQ to take in what you are saying. She doesn't. Cheryl, have you thought about getting help with that anger problem you have? Must make for a miserable day.
Actually, fully half of the 47% of folks who pay no income tax are middle to upper middle class people who can and do take full advantage of the wide variety of tax deductions.
Cheryl, your knowledge of historical facts is troubling. Roosevelt came in after the depression had begun, in 1976 inflation was already significant under Nixon/Ford (do you have any knowledge at all of Ford's WIN buttons?), Reagan raised taxes, as did GHW Bush, as did Clinton. Like it or not, for the twenty years beginning with Reagan, the economy improved under reasonable increases of taxation. And no, the recession did not end with GW, he simply hid and exacerbated it by putting the short fall on a credit card.
Sorry to hit you with facts, but they are stubborn things and hard to avoid.
SMH. And if Bush dedicated every dime of revenue surplus to eliminating the debt instead of sending it back, the entire dynamic and discussion would be completely different, but NNNOOOOOOOO. GOP now says the deficit and debt can only be cut by cutting government, cutting services and by approving environmental pollution.
Where were the idiots when Bush signed that TEMPORARY tax cut bill? In love with the debt so much that the thought of paying it down was abhorrent? Where were they when it was time for allowing those cuts to expire? On the side of reducing debt? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
The National Debt is the Teddy bear they can't go to sleep without as they dream of owning it all.
Not to mention along with raising taxes we sold war bonds to help finance WW2.
If low taxes and no regulations are so good where are the jobs, we have had these low rates for ten years now, if it created jobs we would be hip deep in jobs, how come everything went south after we cut taxes and effectively stopped regulating the banks and wall street under Bush. We had high tax rates and a great economy under Clinton, and rich people were still rich. We even had a surplus that could have been used to pay down some of the deficit, GW said the surplus was proof that taxes were too high, so he gave it back, by way of the rebate checks. Low taxes for rich people benefits rich people and that's all it does, it does not create jobs or anything else people claim it does, there is no proof of that whatsoever. If you want to give special tax breaks to the rich to make them even more rich fine, but be honest about it, that is all it does.
Here you go, Tea Party people. From Bruce Bartlett a supply-side economist who served Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Jack Kemp, and Ron Paul:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/
The following sums it up pretty well, in the last two paragraphs:
He calls the Cain plan a "distributional monstrosity". The poor pay more, the rich pay less, and with no guarantee it would do anything positive for economic growth. And with good reason to believe budget deficits would increase. He also says the Cain plan, allowing for sometimes poorly thought out tax promises on the campaign trail, is "exceptionally ill conceived".
He has a long analysis there, clearly stating where the details are too fuzzy to know for sure (which is Cain's fault).
I guess that you think that Obama's plans, taxes, regulations, borrowing, and spending for the past three years "guaranteed" positive economic growth though, right?
There are no "guarantees", but for sure the economic "policies" of tax, regulate, borrow, and spend spend spend sure hasn't worked. It's time for SOME kind of change.
I have no problems paying 9% income tax and 9% sales tax (on top of the garbage that California already hits me for). Unless I'm spending TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars buying things the hit isn't going to be that big, but my income taxes will go DOWN from the present 10% I pay now.
We have had positive economic growth in the last couple of years. When Obama became president we were in a recession and shedding 800,000 jobs/month. Now the economy is growing and the economy is producing jobs.
Look, it is the opinion I posted of a supply-side economist who worked for Reagan, Bush, Paul, and Kemp. I share his opinion, but you'll discount mine.
You are so confident in dismissing an opinion from a supply-side guy like Bartlett? Well ok, your choice.
So if you pay 10% income tax, your taxes will go down to 9%, but since you are in a low bracket, it'll be more than made up for by the 9% tax increase on what you spend. You probably spend most of your money if you are in the 10% bracket.
Your taxes will nearly double with 999. You are ok with that? Gosh, why on earth are you ok with that?
My taxes will go dramatically down on the 999 plan. A lot. And I still wouldn't ever support it, because it is terrible for the economy and the country.
And where would that "positive economic growth" be?
And don't give us all that "shedding 800,000 jobs a month" crap please. I've seen that go from 650,000, to 700,000, to 750,000 to NOW 800,000 jobs being "shed" every month. And by the way that was AFTER Congress had been dominated by Democrats for two years.
And if the "economy is producing jobs", why has the unemployment rate been at 9% or over for two and half years now? Why are there 16.5 million people unemployed? Why is the average person drawing unemployment at over ONE YEAR now? Why are housing prices still falling? A ONE PERCENT annual growth is no growth at all, except maybe in Europe.
I don't care about "supply side", and "trickle down", and all of the other horse crap that's thrown out.
I LIVE in this economy every day. I see why people aren't hiring. I see the doctors that are raising their rates because of ObamaCare. I see why housing prices are going down still as even more people that couldn't afford to buy homes in the first place either move out or are foreclosed on. I see why there are no jobs because EVERY small business out there has their costs going up because of new regulations, ObamaCare and if YOU have your way, higher taxes.
And I see my local, state, and federal taxes go higher and higher, with NOTHING except a result that the government is over bloated, over spending, and over USELESS and what I EARNED and forced to pay to those governments is going for nothing.
Except of course paying back unions (which is now called a "jobs act") with the taxpayers money, which creates exactly ZERO jobs, and ZERO growth, but ensures that Democrats have a cash cow they can call on EVERY election cycle.
Oh, like 30 more years of "trickle-down" economics. Yea, that'll work this time won't it!
Well, Cheryl, unemployment is stuck because the economy is not producing new jobs fast enough. The number of people seeking work is not a fixed number, but varies over time, so you can produce jobs and still not be able to move unemployment.
No one is happy with the current situation, but to say that we don't have positive growth is just false. The growth is just so weak that no one is happy with it.
Moreover, even if you are unhappy with Obama's policies, the idea that then we should try something insane like 9-9-9 doesn't follow. It doesn't follow that, because we are unhappy with the current economy, that that means that any policies will be better than the current policies.
It is pretty clear 9-9-9 would be a disaster, both from stimulating demand, providing a decent standard of living for most of the population, and will likely lead to worse budget shortfalls.
And, unless your income has gone up, federal taxes have gone down since Obama became president. It is just an outright lie to claim otherwise. He has added several tax cuts, and extended the Bush tax rates. So, for practically everyone, taxes are lower. Taxes are lower as fraction of GDP since the early 1950's. Taxes right now are historically low.
It doesn't square with reality to claim your federal taxes are higher. If you pay 10%, I pay a lot more than you do. Your tax burden is low, low, low, which is fine. WIth Cain and 9-9-9, if you think your taxes are high now, they really will go up with Cain.
Calm down CherylLM, relax, think of the Scorpion tune and sing "Rock You Like a Hermann Cain" for us.
Herman Cain: "So whats the problem?"
Progressive Power has known about the Koch-Cain economic connection for years. This is not new for "Crazy Cain!" That is fact America.
Cain's plan will only benefit the rich. The poor & middle class will pay more.
HMMM Imagine that!
(I wonder if he's ODd on Koch yet)
Waaah. The "poor and middle class" will have to actually have to contribute SOMETHING.
Too bad that you don't call for the government to CUT SPENDING, but instead whine because "the poor and middle class will pay more".
Really? Middle class will have to actually contribute something? I'm middle class. I served this country in uniform for over 20 years. I was a paramedic for 8 years. WHAT have YOU done for this country?
The poor and the middle class are already contributing something. As a matter of fact, according to a Bush White House study, the middle class contribute at an effective tax rate almost double that of the rich.
We carry way too many people in this country who contribute absolutely nothing by way of taxes, yet expect big dividends in services. (I exclude the retired, because they paid the taxes for many years) What I refer to is the generational poverty class, the group who has not worked and did not see their parents work...they grew up in subsidized housing, got food stamps, energy credits, free lunches and breakfasts at school.....this group is actually much larger than anyone thinks, because a study was done that shows the actual percentage of people living below the poverty line in this country has not changed in the 50 years or more since Johnson started the War on Poverty....yet the population of this country has expanded at least 3 times in that same time frame. It is a statistical impossibility that the exact same percentage remains in poverty over that period of time, and in the face of all the money and programs instituted to combat poverty. Which begs the question, Are we actually trying to eliminate poverty and dependency by our expenditures and programs or perpetuate it to continue a class of people beholden to those in government (guaranteed votes) Isn't this the same impetus for wanting amnesty for illegal aliens (more obligatory votes) I don't care if it is only $5 a year, but I certainly would feel better if the supposed "poor" were to contribute something back to the system that provides them with most things that working middle class folks have to pay for. By the time a middle class family pays their taxes, buys groceries, pays rent/mortgage, pays for health insurance, dental coverage, optical coverage, pays for utilities......do they really have any more that the people on welfare who don't have to pay or pay as much for those same said commodities.
Here's the thing...and it is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum. "9-9-9" can be put on a bumper sticker. It requires no thought. That is the problem...and that is the attraction. "Change you can believe in", without specifics, won 3 years ago. "Morning in America" won for Reagan. Political campaigns were changed forever once "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" rocketed Winston to the number one brand...simply by mindless repetition.
How do the poor pay more if 47% of our population PAYS NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX?
THEIR TOO POOR TO PAY INCOME TAXES! The GOP would rather have these ppl pay more than wealthy people? How does this at all make sense.
Yeah, instead of the rich paying more, we should just take everything the poor have and tax the middle class more.
That's the ticket to creating jobs!
Yes 47%, because they don't make a lot of money, pay no federal income tax. but they do pay SSI and Medicaire taxes. They do pay all of their state and local taxes, most of which in this country are regressive tax systems like a sales tax.
So, please, stop with the lie that 47% contribute nothing.
47% pay NO federal income tax. That is not a lie, it is fact.
Drew, what exactly is toooo poor to pay income taxes? And says who? Not only do they not pay, they have a negative tax liability and so get more back than what was withheld from them.
47% pay NO federal income tax. That is not a lie, it is fact.
Nope. Try again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1319036764-FepWPgEeawqizWZAiBURVA
"Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47."
Btw, I would really suggest double checking anything that Michelle Bachmann says.
Everyone else, especially the poor, would pay more. And the middle class would now have the highest effective federal tax rate.
Wow like we couldn't have called that earlier.