U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2011, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,800,954 times
Reputation: 6195

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
I wonder if it is fair to say that one group of Americans put the gas in the tank and drive the car and another group are hitch hikers getting a free ride? So will the 9-9-9 plan require everyone to help gas up, drive or navigate? Perhaps I have it wrong. Doesn't our current system allow people to neither put gas in the tank or drive but still allow them to navigate?
Cain's plan shifts tax burden to those not paying taxes today, and clearly increases taxes for those with lower incomes.

Interestingly, he does find it critical to exclude one class of income from any taxation:

- Features zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits...eliminates double taxation of dividends


999 | Herman Cain for President
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2011, 10:14 PM
 
624 posts, read 1,076,627 times
Reputation: 616
Maybe the 47% of our population who do not pay taxes will start contributing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 04:33 AM
 
10,139 posts, read 23,279,357 times
Reputation: 8290
Under a "Cain type" plan, a person who earns 100,000 and spends 120,000 would pay more than a person who earns the same and saves some of his money. That seems like something to encourage instead of what we have now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 04:55 AM
 
29,766 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11675
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Cain's plan shifts tax burden to those not paying taxes today, and clearly increases taxes for those with lower incomes.

Interestingly, he does find it critical to exclude one class of income from any taxation:

- Features zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits...eliminates double taxation of dividends


999 | Herman Cain for President
You know thats a winner with me. Dividend taxation is double taxation as you should not be taxed for using your money in a productive way. To do that is to help contribute to the stilfiling of productive resources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 04:57 AM
 
29,766 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilson513 View Post
Under a "Cain type" plan, a person who earns 100,000 and spends 120,000 would pay more than a person who earns the same and saves some of his money. That seems like something to encourage instead of what we have now.
Bingo it is exactly that Behvavioral Economics which the Obama original Obama Economic team believed in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 05:28 AM
 
29,766 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11675
However should it really surprise anyone about the following Herman Cain revelations and his 9-9-9?

Long ties to Koch brothers key to Cain's campaign - Yahoo! News

Quote:
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has cast himself as the outsider, the pizza magnate with real-world experience who will bring fresh ideas to the nation's capital. But Cain's economic ideas, support and organization have close ties to two billionaire brothers who bankroll right-leaning causes through their group Americans for Prosperity.

Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending. Cain credits a businessman who served on an AFP advisory board with helping devise his "9-9-9" plan to rewrite the nation's tax code.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,687 posts, read 5,534,464 times
Reputation: 4966
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Cain's plan shifts tax burden to those not paying taxes today, and clearly increases taxes for those with lower incomes.

Interestingly, he does find it critical to exclude one class of income from any taxation:

- Features zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits...eliminates double taxation of dividends

999 | Herman Cain for President
Thanks for posting the link.

Not being rich myself, I really don't like this plan. My taxes would go up a LOT, while taxes on the rich would go down a LOT ... just what this country needs, more money to the elite.

1. 9% tax on income except investment income - that clearly favors the rich, who as a group have more investment income, at the expense of the lower- and middle-class. A person with an income of $30K would pay 9%; a person with an income of $300K, of which $150K is investment income, would pay an effective rate of 4.5%. The person with the greater income would be paying a higher total amount of taxes, but at a much lower rate.

2. 9% sales tax - that would replace existing state sales tax - on everything .... food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. I'm sure that will be welcome by the people living in states without a sales tax, like New Hampshire and Florida.

3. 9% business income tax - gee, what happens when the cost of business goes up? Either the company finds ways to save in other areas (like lower wages), or - you guessed it - the cost gets passed right along to the consumer. This would be just another 9% sales tax.

So under the 9-9-9 plan, my income tax would go down slightly (I paid an effective rate of 10.6% last year), my sales tax would go up considerably (in VA, it's generally 5% now), and the cost of many things would go up as businesses pass along - as they always do - their increased cost to the consumer.

I'm sure the 9-9-9 plan will be very popular with some folks. It's a catchy little soundbite that is especially appealing to people who have neither the desire nor ability to think for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 06:47 AM
 
9,182 posts, read 9,265,199 times
Reputation: 28754
Here's my idea of a fair tax plan. Leave things the way they are except for the following changes:

1. A minimum tax requiring even people with low incomes to pay a rate of 5% regardless of the deductions and credits.

2. An increase of the rate to 40% for all persons or families earning more than $1 million per year.

3. Restoration of the inheritance tax for estates as small as $500,000. I'd like to see how much revenue this one produces. However, my thoughts are if it produced enough revenue that I'd like to use it to lower income tax rates. I'd rather tax people who got a "windfall" than I would tax people who actually earned their money.

4. An annual surcharge of $500 on every American who is 50 and older (includes me) that is specifically there to raise money for Medicare. The idea is that those who are in age approaching the time they will need Medicare should pay more for it than younger people.

5. When an elderly person dies, examine how much they paid into Medicare over their lifetime. Than, examine how much Medicare paid for their healthcare. If the elderly person has an estate, than tax the estate for the difference. All money received should be directed for future Medicare needs.

With the economy in a recession, all these taxes will have to be phased in gradually. Tax increases will slow down economic recovery. As the economy picks up, put them all into place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 07:25 AM
 
29,766 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11675
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
Thanks for posting the link.

Not being rich myself, I really don't like this plan. My taxes would go up a LOT, while taxes on the rich would go down a LOT ... just what this country needs, more money to the elite.

1. 9% tax on income except investment income - that clearly favors the rich, who as a group have more investment income, at the expense of the lower- and middle-class. A person with an income of $30K would pay 9%; a person with an income of $300K, of which $150K is investment income, would pay an effective rate of 4.5%. The person with the greater income would be paying a higher total amount of taxes, but at a much lower rate.

2. 9% sales tax - that would replace existing state sales tax - on everything .... food, clothing, housing, medicine, etc. I'm sure that will be welcome by the people living in states without a sales tax, like New Hampshire and Florida.

3. 9% business income tax - gee, what happens when the cost of business goes up? Either the company finds ways to save in other areas (like lower wages), or - you guessed it - the cost gets passed right along to the consumer. This would be just another 9% sales tax.

So under the 9-9-9 plan, my income tax would go down slightly (I paid an effective rate of 10.6% last year), my sales tax would go up considerably (in VA, it's generally 5% now), and the cost of many things would go up as businesses pass along - as they always do - their increased cost to the consumer.

I'm sure the 9-9-9 plan will be very popular with some folks. It's a catchy little soundbite that is especially appealing to people who have neither the desire nor ability to think for themselves.
Very wrong many of the proponents are very well educated, affluent and are quite accomplished at thinking for themselves and most importantly about THEMSELVES. Remember a key concept of capitalism is acting in your own self interest and that is a key component in wealth creation. The question being asked about the 9-9-9 plan vs our current tax code is whether people acting in their own self interest should have government transfer their wealth for purposes not deemed to be in their self interest? Building roads is probably in the self interest of a vast majority of tax paying Americans. Is welfare? Should a majority paying a minority amount of the taxes be able to increase the wealth transfer to themselves? Now for those in retirement trying to manage and secure their senior years be taxed to provide benefits for welfare mothers? Should even the poor have to have a fair amount of skin in the game since so much is given of them now without cost? Much of that coming from seniors! Do you as a senior resent paying taxes on the assets you worked so hard to obtain in order to provide for someone who won't work and prefers to be a stay at home mom with no husband and your taxes as their providor? I am sure we all have a variety of opinions on the topic of fair taxation and senior citizens. Are seniors and the poor treated the same when it comes to social security taxes paid and the distribution of those collective taxes. I am thinking of the Earned Income Credit.

These are very real and serious questions as we have a considerable percentage of Americans draing the tank and a decreasing amount putting gas in the tank. There are the working and disabled poor and those who in this environment are struggling to find a job and they deserve the collective support of society. However as we all know there are one heck of a lot who are professional hitch hikers.

Last edited by TuborgP; 10-16-2011 at 07:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,677 posts, read 49,423,020 times
Reputation: 19129
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Cain's plan shifts tax burden to those not paying taxes today, and clearly increases taxes for those with lower incomes.
Which would certainly slam many pensioners.



Quote:
... Interestingly, he does find it critical to exclude one class of income from any taxation:

- Features zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits...eliminates double taxation of dividends
So if you invested your savings into the stock market, and lived off the dividends, you would be tax-free?

I am certain that in the future many workers would dump their tax-able pensions, in favor of mutual funds which would be tax-free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top