Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,455
Cain doesn't have an actual campaign. He is in the process of a book tour and running for the nomination as a second job. Which, I admit, is admirable.
Cain's 9/9/9 plan
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
He sounds better than Mitt Romney in debates.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,455
Nobodys hiring until the 6th of November 2012.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
That I can agree with. However, he will not lose at the hands of Herman Cain.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
But, it will be exciting if he does. Even more exciting if he changes his name to "Abel" right before.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
Exciting, yes, but not in the way Republicans would like. It would be wire to wire.
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Your thoughts have summoned me from hell. Or grad school. Can't tell the difference most days.
Ummm, where to start.
Phase 1 would be to tax wage income, corporate income, and purchases each by 9%.
The big shift from current policy, and what might make this revenue-neutral (haven't checked the math) is that he would complete eliminate all deductions, credits, &c in the wage income tax (except the charitable giving deduction!). Now in real life, there's no way he'd get rid of all the upper-middle-class deductions but let's take him seriously for a moment.
The current tax code forfeits $1 trillion in revenue through deductions, credits and subsidies. If he reclaimed all of that, it'd prolly push the plan into revenue-neutral territory.
The first phase would also eliminate payroll taxes, so I have no idea what Cain would do to Social Security. It's kind of a black hole.
Phase 2 would be a national sales tax. It is a bad idea because if you really, truly want to tax consumption you wouldn't do it at point-of-sale, you'd do it in a way that looks an whole lot like the current income tax.
A consumption tax at point of sale is (1) hard to make proportional in cross-section, which people get awfully upset about and (2) is a political minefield because you have to grant exemptions at the item level and not income level.
--
If U3 unemployment remains above 8%, or if it's trending sideways from July through October 2012, it's difficult to see how Obama could keep the Presidency.
Empirically, voters pay a whole lot of attention (implicity) to the rate of change of the unemployment rate. If the rate is trending down, it's good for the incumbent; if it's trending up, that's the signal to start packing your bags. If it's trending sideways, that's not a whole lot better than trending up.
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
Is that because of the illusion that it is fair?
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
No, its because my accounting fees would decrease and I would be understand taxes better.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Ahh so now it becomes clear who this so called plan really targets: ACCOUNTANTS
How many accountants would lose their jobs if this went through?
How many accountants would lose their jobs if this went through?
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
That's not a reason to like it. I haven't done the math, but considering how low these taxes are, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to raise the same revenue as taxes are now. That means a lot of services would be eliminated.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
To be honest, I feel like I can't take Cain seriously after his Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan comment.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
That was covered in the article I posted earlier. It was estimated his scheme would decrease federal revenue by approximately 17% compared to what it is now.
Cain wants to use Other People's Money, e.g. future generations, to make his friends even richer. That racket to not pay their bills has never fallen out of favor with so many "fiscal conservatives".
You're point is a good one. It is a problem that so many of our political leaders are lawyers. But it's not universal. The problem with addressing it though is that businesspeople have been bad leaders as a whole in recent years. So no gain there.
Your thoughts have summoned me from hell. Or grad school. Can't tell the difference most days.
Ummm, where to start.
Phase 1 would be to tax wage income, corporate income, and purchases each by 9%.
The big shift from current policy, and what might make this revenue-neutral (haven't checked the math) is that he would complete eliminate all deductions, credits, &c in the wage income tax (except the charitable giving deduction!). Now in real life, there's no way he'd get rid of all the upper-middle-class deductions but let's take him seriously for a moment.
The current tax code forfeits $1 trillion in revenue through deductions, credits and subsidies. If he reclaimed all of that, it'd prolly push the plan into revenue-neutral territory.
The first phase would also eliminate payroll taxes, so I have no idea what Cain would do to Social Security. It's kind of a black hole.
Phase 2 would be a national sales tax. It is a bad idea because if you really, truly want to tax consumption you wouldn't do it at point-of-sale, you'd do it in a way that looks an whole lot like the current income tax.
A consumption tax at point of sale is (1) hard to make proportional in cross-section, which people get awfully upset about and (2) is a political minefield because you have to grant exemptions at the item level and not income level.
--
If U3 unemployment remains above 8%, or if it's trending sideways from July through October 2012, it's difficult to see how Obama could keep the Presidency.
Empirically, voters pay a whole lot of attention (implicity) to the rate of change of the unemployment rate. If the rate is trending down, it's good for the incumbent; if it's trending up, that's the signal to start packing your bags. If it's trending sideways, that's not a whole lot better than trending up.
So there's some theoretical possibility of his plan generating enough revenue, but not certain?
The economy certainly is against Obama. But the Republicans still have to generate a candidate people give a damn about.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I want a fight to the death in a steel-cage match of all republican candidates and the winner gets the nomination. Who do you think would win that?
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,455
That directly contradicts what the Republican establishment is saying. In their version the election is going to be a thumbs up/down on Obama and everything is fine if the GOP candidate doesn't scare people.
These are looking for Romney. I've yet to meet anyone who wants him. If you go to watch a debate with a group of GOPers, you'll see everyone dash to the bathroom or the fridge when a question is addressed to him.
I think you might be right though. And it would probably hurt the GOP in congressional races if he is the nominee because there would absolutely be no coatails to grab.A big GOP win would have to be bottom up.
Perry remains the only likely runner to be able to beat Obama in an improving economy because he is a real conservative and the only real baggage he has is the inability to think and talk at the same time.
There has been a lot of bias against Perry so far. He made a comment about Helicopter Ben and was slammed pretty hard but Newt is even tougher and wants to jail Dodd and Frank and you don't here the allegations that he is out of the mainstream as was said of Perry.
The big issue right now is in moving the primaries up before some of the runners fall out is a big help to Romney who is going to win NH and NV while the conservative vote is cut up 4 or 5 ways in IW and SC. Florida will be huge.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,455
taxing sales means that all taxes are going to be tranfered to the consumer and that bussnessman pais no taxes. what I think that should be done is a replacement of all taxes to just one in the income.
Killing potentially innocent people and blocking inquiry into their innocence looks bad for Perry.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Would you get in a steel cage with Michele Backman?
Eh, I'm not running for president. I want to see how Romney is at Fighting to the death though.
