Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

FoxNews: Cain Adds to ‘9-9-9’ Plan, Angering Unions


Jeeb

Recommended Posts

Taking aim at minimum wage laws, union protections, and even local building codes, Herman Cain has put the finishing touches on the last missing piece of his signature “9-9-9” plan – an elaborate proposal to create “opportunity zones” in inner-city America that the GOP presidential candidate will unveil during a major campaign appearance in Detroit on Friday morning.

Cain hinted at the move during Tuesday night’s GOP debate in Las Vegas. He and his aides hope the details they provide about their plans to encourage growth in impoverished areas will deflect the surge of recent criticism branding “9-9-9” as unfair to the poor.

But details about the opportunity zone proposal, as obtained in advance by Fox News, will likely make “9-9-9” more, not less, controversial, particularly with organized labor.

To qualify for zone status under Cain’s plan, a given jurisdiction will have to enact policies the unions consider anathema – such as the elimination of the minimum wage, the provision of school vouchers, or the declaration of a zone as a “right-to-work” area.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/20/cain-adds-to-plan-angering-unions/#ixzz1bSqELxpB

Hooray for Tax-Free work camps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in short, his plan is to tax employers for hiring workers, but to then exempt employers from that tax, if they move the company to a place that votes Republican?

(Wish I could decide whether to put a sarcasm tag, here.)

----------

Still, I bet that proposing to outlaw Unions, end the minimum wage, and give federal tax exemptions to places that pass school voucher laws, probably gets him 10 percentage points.

Heck, maybe he can put something in there about "there can't be any Planned Parenthood offices within 50 miles, either".

----------

The Republican Party.

If you believe that what will really help America is if the bottom 80% of wage earners have their pay cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.

Cain just raises the tax. (On every employee except the owner, who is exempt.)

Not really. I don't think people really understand what an employer "pays" and what an employee pays.

Prior to this years reduction, an employer pays (with employee "contribution") 15.3%, this year 13.3%.

Now you can say well the employer only pays 7.65%, but the true fact is under the 9-9-9 plan if I hire someone, costs on top of their income is 9%. Under todays plan, costs on top of an employees income is 13.3/15.3% up until the IRS limit (whatever it is 106,000 per year).

So to hire employees under the new plan, payroll taxes are CHEAPER..

If you were running a monthly payroll of 100K for all of your employees would you rather the business pay 109K for payroll or 113.3K or 115K in payroll?

It's a savings in payroll, not sure why nobody understands payroll ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. I don't think people really understand what an employer "pays" and what an employee pays.

Prior to this years reduction, an employer pays (with employee "contribution") 15.3%, this year 13.3%.

Now you can say well the employer only pays 7.65%, but the true fact is under the 9-9-9 plan if I hire someone, costs on top of their income is 9%. Under todays plan, costs on top of an employees income is 13.3/15.3% up until the IRS limit (whatever it is 106,000 per year).

And, if you want to play that game, then Cain's plan raises it to 19%.

Long as we're going to pull the "the employer pays the employee's taxes, too" game.

Hint: If you're going to call people ignorant, don't then try to lie. Looks bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, if you want to play that game, then Cain's plan raises it to 19%.

Long as we're going to pull the "the employer pays the employee's taxes, too" game.

Hint: If you're going to call people ignorant, don't then try to lie. Looks bad.

How is it raised to 19%. I honestly haven't looked to deeply into it, and I don't mind stating my honest shortcomings :) What is the other 10% for?

As far as saying the employees pay it....hey I don't have to hire an employee, and if I don't...it's not getting paid :) The idea is to reduce employers payrolls to allow them to hire.

Now you can say all employers are evil and all the savings will go in there pocket. I claim employers hire employees to increase revenue, not decrease revenue. So if there is more money to spend, and an employer thinks hiring someone will improve their bottom line. They will hire. Growing a company to 1 employee and squeezing every penny of profit to avoid growth is not what most employers envision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how anyone could support this guy in his mission to destroy pretty much everything this country is about. His plan can be summarized as such:

- Massive tax increase on the lower middle class and poor.

- massive reduction in benefits to that same group.

- a near elimination if taxes on the super rich.

- a massive tax cut on the highest income earners.

- rules that strip protections in the hardest hit areas in order to promote growth.

- open favoritism of big business

This guy is everything liberals have been saying about conservatives. I guess now that a major candidate is openly admitting this **** the rest are ready to do the same.

I'd volunteer for a Ron Paul campaign before I'd support Cain. Radical libertarianism would be less damaging than Cain's quest to creat a caste system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to claim that the employer pays both taxes under the current system, then you have to claim that the employer pays both taxes under Cain's system.

Are you confusing personal taxes with payroll taxes?

Employees currently "pay" the 7.65 percent or 5.65 percent plus they pay personal taxes on their returns that employers dont pay.

I am confused by your response, sorry. I am asking for an explanation because I am honestly not sure where you are going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW. I found this link (pdf) in another thread. It's a pretty detailed analysis of Cain's plan.

Edit: Apparently the above link doesn't work. Try going here, to the study's summary page, and then clicking the "One-Click Download" link, at the top of the page, to get the whole thing.)

I'll freely admit that there are parts of it I can't follow. (That must mean it's good, right?)

Some excerpts:

The intro:

Presidential candidate Herman Cain has proposed replacing current law’s income, payroll and estate taxes with his “9-9-9 Plan”– a 9 percent “individual flat tax,” a 9 percent “business flat tax,” and a 9 percent sales tax. This essay analyzes the components of the 9-9-9 Plan. Contrary to casual impressions, the Plan could be expected to raise substantial amounts of revenue, but does so largely by skewing downwards the distribution of tax burdens when compared to current law.

The 9-9-9 Plan functions as an effective 27 percent payroll tax on wage income. By imposing an effective 27 percent flat tax on wage income, the 9-9-9 Plan would materially raise the tax burden on many low- and middle-income taxpayers, who today face little or no tax under the income tax, and a 15.3 percent effective payroll tax burden. The Plan apparently offers lower tax rates (17.2 percent) for labor income attributable to owner-employees of firms, because they can extract their labor earnings as returns to capital.

The Plan operates as an ersatz variant on standard consumption taxes with respect to capital income, exempting normal returns on equity from tax and imposing tax at an effective 17.2 percent rate on economic rents. Finally, the Plan’s sales tax acts as a one-time tax on existing wealth. The relative undesirability of that consequence depends on what one chooses as the current-law comparable.

To summarize the 9-9-9 Plan’s operation, the labor (wage) income part of the 9-9-9 Plan claims to repeal the payroll tax and roll back the personal income tax, but what the Plan really does is substitute for current law's payroll taxes (12.4 percent OASDI payroll tax, capped at about $107,000 of wage income, and the uncapped 2.9 percent Medicare payroll tax), a new 18.9 percent uncapped payroll tax, plus a 9 percent sales tax on an employee’s after-tax income. The combination of the three actually operates as the economic equivalent of a 27 percent uncapped payroll tax.4 In the case of self-employed taxpayers, however, the plan seems to countenance a discounted tax rate of 17.2 percent — that is, self-employed individuals can avoid the 9 percent employer tax (the “business flat tax”) by just paying themselves no salary and taking their profits out as “dividends.”5

There's one interesting point he makes, concerning something that he suspects (and I do, too) Cain didn't intend, with his proposal. If I can paraphrase, he says that Cain's sales tax has the effect of imposing a one-time 9% tax on all wealth. (Because however much money you have in the bank, when the tax passes, would get taxed, when you spent the money.)

---------- Post added October-21st-2011 at 11:07 PM ----------

Are you confusing personal taxes with payroll taxes?

Employees currently "pay" the 7.65 percent or 5.65 percent plus they pay personal taxes on their returns that employers dont pay.

I am confused by your response, sorry. I am asking for an explanation because I am honestly not sure where you are going.

Nope. You are.

That's how you got the bogus claim that employers pay 15%, back when you were calling anybody who disagrees with you, ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. You are.

That's how you got the bogus claim that employers pay 15%, back when you were calling anybody who disagrees with you, ignorant.

I never called anyone ignorant.

Regardless, you still haven't explained how payroll taxes went from 9% to 19% in the 9-9-9 plan.

I asked, you avoided.

I never said I support the plan, or Cain for that matter. I gave you my honest response that I don't fully understand the plan.

But if you are trying to confuse the current payroll tax, to a 9% payroll tax + Individual taxes (even those who currently have an effective tax rate of ZERO) then you are mixing two basic facts.

If I am wrong, explain, stop with the insults. That's typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never called anyone ignorant.

I apologize.

Now that you've regained the use of your account from whoever was using it, you might want to edit the posts which the imposter posted, which said:

I don't think people really understand what an employer "pays" and what an employee pays.

and

not sure why nobody understands payroll ;)

----------

Regardless, you still haven't explained how payroll taxes went from 9% to 19% in the 9-9-9 plan.

The same way they went to 15% in your post. (I'm sorry. The imposter's post.)

I wiggled my finger in the air, and then I pretended that the employer is paying the employee's taxes.

Just like the imposter did.

----------

Now, if you'd rather just compare the amount that the employer pays, right now, to the amount the employer pays, under Cain, then it's:

  • Now, the employer pays 7.5%, up to $104K of payroll, and 1.3%, above that.
  • Under Cain's plan, the employer pays 9.8%, with no ceiling. (Unless the employee is the owner, in which case it's zero.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a second, didnt Jack Kemp propose almost the exact same thing a while back? I think his were called enterprise zones or something like that.

Jack Kemp proposed eliminating unions and the minimum wage, and making federal assistance for depressed areas dependent on the area passing his party's political agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack Kemp proposed eliminating unions and the minimum wage, and making federal assistance for depressed areas dependent on the area passing his party's political agenda?

You are strange sometimes. Did you read a darned thing I posted in my question or are you just interested in always starting a debate, even when there isnt one? Grow up.

I simply asked if it was kemp who proposed "Enterprise zones" because I thought he did.

---------- Post added October-22nd-2011 at 09:11 AM ----------

and yes, I was correct it appears

http://townhall.com/columnists/jackkemp/2003/02/25/enterprise_zones_of_choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks that the Republicans will do anything that will help the 99% instead of the 1% that funds them is out of their ever livin' mind. You and I mean probably almost anyone on this site will not benefit from Republican policies. You think you will and you will have more of your money to spend, but you really won't, because the modern Republican Party solely exists to enrich the already stinking rich. And that goes for those Democrats that are bought by corporations too. That leaves only about 2-3 politicians in Congress who aren't bought by corporations, Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kuchinich I think are the only 2 who don't accept any corporate contributions. The rest are all corporate whores, regardless of party affiliation.

Until we get corporate money totally out of the political system, we will have to put up with this continued redistribution of wealth upward. And if you think it's going downward you have really drunk the koolaid.

Read the Preamble to the Constitution. For your convenience, I'll quote it here. And remember that the Congress and all who take an oath of Federal office swear to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It's We the People, not we the corporations. Any rights under the Constitution are guaranteed to people, actual human beings, not corporations, no matter how much Republicans want to believe that corporations are people too, to quote one of the Republican Party candidates for president. Corporations are not created by uniting sperm and egg and do not arrive by way of birth. The are inventions of law, conceived in law only. And until Texas finds a way to execute one like they do human beings by stopping its heart, breathing and brain, then they are not human.

Money is not speech. Corporations are not humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks that the Republicans {or Democrats} will do anything that will help the 99% instead of the 1% that funds them is out of their ever livin' mind. You and I mean probably almost anyone on this site will not benefit from Republican policies. You think you will and you will have more of your money to spend, but you really won't, because the Republican Party sole exists to enrich the already stinking rich. And that goes for those Democrats that are bought by corporations too. That leaves only about 2-3 politicians in Congress who aren't bought by corporations, Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kuchinich I think are the only 2 who don't accept any corporate contributions. The rest are all corporate whores, regardless of party affiliation.

Until we get corporate money totally out of the political system, we will have to put up with this continued redistribution of wealth upward. And if you think it's going downward you have really drunk the koolaid.

Read the Preamble to the Constitution. For your convenience, I'll quote it here. And remember that the Congress and all who take an oath of Federal office swear to uphold the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It's We the People, not we the corporations. Any rights under the Constitution are guaranteed to people, actual human beings, not corporations, no matter how much Republicans want to believe that corporations are people too, to quote one of the Republican Party candidates for president. Corporations are not created by uniting sperm and egg and do not arrive by way of birth. The are inventions of law, conceived in law only. And until Texas finds a way to execute one like they do human beings by stopping its heart, breathing and brain, then they are not human.

Money is not speech. Corporations are not humans.

Other than the small correction I had to make, you are spot on. Lets see the forest for the trees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...