"Most" pay little or no taxes. That might just work..............
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3...
http://www.politifact.com/vir...
ANALYSIS: Cain’s ’999′ Plan Would Cause Largest Deficits Since WWII, While Increasing Taxes For Most Americans
ProudProgressive
2011/10/06 15:43:21
ANALYSIS: Cain’s ’999′ Plan Would Cause Largest Deficits Since WWII, While Increasing Taxes For Most Americans
By Pat Garofalo
Oct 5, 2011 at 1:55 pm
2012 GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain — who has seen a recent surge in the polls — has been trumpeting the supposed benefits of his “999″ economic plan, which would implement a 9 percent flat-tax on personal income and corporate income, along with a 9 percent national sales tax, while scrapping the rest of the tax code (including all of the deductions and all of the taxes on investment income such as capital gains).
Cain claims that his plan would not be “regressive on the poor,” but economists disagree due to the imposition of a national sales tax that would wallop the poor significantly harder than the rich. Cain also claims the plan will be revenue-neutral, in that it would raise as much revenue as the current tax code. I had Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden run the numbers on Cain’s plan, and it turns out that it wouldn’t be deficit-neutral — not even close (all calculations are based on 2007 tax data, the last year before the Great Recession):
– For the income tax portion: In 2007, total Adjusted Gross Income on all income tax returns was $8.7 trillion. Since Cain’s plan would exempt investment income, but would have no other deductions, that brings taxable income down to $7.4 trillion. A flat 9 percent tax would therefore have yielded about $665 billion in income tax revenue.
– For the corporate tax portion: In 2007, there was a total of $1.3 trillion in reported corporate income subject to tax. A flat 9 percent would have yielded $112 billion in revenue.
– For the sales tax portion: I used generally accepted estimates of the revenue generated from a value-added-tax (see here and here, for example). Those estimates suggest that a broad-based 5 percent tax on goods and services would generate about 2 percent of GDP in revenue. That implies that a 9 percent tax in 2007 would have generated about $500 billion.
– Together, then, the 9-9-9 plan would have generated a bit less than $1.3 trillion in total federal tax revenue. That may sound like a lot, but it’s only 9.2 percent of GDP. In 2007, we actually collected 18.5 percent of GDP in tax revenue. In other words, the 9-9-9 plan would cut federal revenue in half!
“Even if we reduced federal spending to the ‘historical average’ (when the population was younger and health care cost much less) it would still leave us with deficits over 11 percent of GDP (bigger than any deficit since WWII, including the deficits of the past three years),” Linden noted.
Linden also found that someone in the bottom quintile of earners — who currently pays about 2 percent of his or her income in federal taxes — would pay about 18 percent under Cain’s plan (9 percent on every dollar they make, plus 9 percent on every dollar they spent, which would likely be close to all of them). A middle-class individual would see his or her taxes go from about 14 percent to about 18 percent. But someone in the richest one percent of Americans would see his or her tax rate fall from about 28 percent to about 11 percent.
So Cain’s plan — which has earned accolades from the likes of supply-side guru Art Laffer — would explode the deficit, while increasing taxes on the poor to pay for a giant tax cut for the rich. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger put it, the plan “would be the biggest tax shift from the wealthy to the middle-class in the history of taxation, ever, anywhere, and it would bankrupt the country.”
Read More: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/05/336649...
Top Opinion
-
randy 2011/10/06 16:06:57
That’s $650 more, period, genius. I don't to hear any spin.
Although the family would save almost $4,000 in Social Security taxes, it would have to give up the child tax credit worth the same amount. Furthermore, it would pay an additional national sales tax of 9 percent on everything purchased, including groceries and clothes, which totals about $2,000.
That means under the Cain plan that family could end up paying $2,725 more.
A remedial math class might be In order for you .
Also, Cain's 999 is step one in a two step reform process. Step II is implimenting the FairTax. $20+ million dollars worth of research in the FairTax. There’s your plan. The FairTax was created by economists and accountants over a course of years, not by a Perry’s, or Romney's, or Bachmann's advisory board over a period of weeks. The FairTax would completely untax all spending up to the poverty level. Of course, there is no mention of this by author Pat Garofalo.
Even a "ProudProgessive" should appreciate completely untaxing the working poor while providing them with an economic environment that encourages business and job creation. Cain's FairTax mean JOBS.
Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
A family of four earning $30,000 may pay no federal income tax, but it pays $4,590 in payroll taxes (including the employer’s share, which economists believe is ultimately paid by the employee in the form of lower wages). Payroll taxes are much bigger than income taxes for most families.
A tax code like that would hit the poor/working class even harder than they already are, stupid. the poor/working class already give 3-4 percent of their income in just state income taxes.
1/3 of Americans are one paycheck away from poverty. in the Reagan years, the rich paid 70%. Going back to that tax code is more logical than a flat tax.
Of the 46% of households who don’t pay income tax, nearly 2/3 pay payroll taxes.
Of the 18% who pay neither income nor payroll taxes, more than half are elderly.
More than 1/3 have incomes below $20,000. (Note: Ronald Reagan made the decision in 1986 to exempt people with incomes below the poverty line from federal income tax. Twenty-five years later, that still seems like a good call.)
Only 1% of nontaxpaying households are nonelderly with incomes over $20,000....
Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below, here’s how much the top Americans make:
Top 1%: $380,354
Top 5%: $159,619
Top 10%: $113,799
Top 25%: $67,280
Top 50%: >$33,048
A family of four earning $30,000 may pay no federal income tax, but it pays $4,590 in payroll taxes (including the employer’s share, which economists believe is ultimately paid by the employee in the form of lower wages). Payroll taxes are much bigger than income taxes for most families.
A tax code like that would hit the poor/working class even harder than they already are, stupid. the poor/working class already give 3-4 percent of their income in just state income taxes.
1/3 of Americans are one paycheck away from poverty. in the Reagan years, the rich paid 70%. Going back to that tax code is more logical than a flat tax.
Of the 46% of households who don’t pay income tax, nearly 2/3 pay payroll taxes.
Of the 18% who pay neither income nor payroll taxes, more than half are elderly.
More than 1/3 have incomes below $20,000. (Note: Ronald Reagan made the decision in 1986 to exempt people with incomes below the poverty line from federal income tax. Twenty-five years later, that still seems like a good call.)
Only 1% of nontaxpaying households are nonelderly with incomes over $20,000. I’m dismayed about them too governor. Maybe we should close some of the loopholes that allowed almost 1,500 millionaires to escape income tax in 2009.
So according to the IRS, that $30k family pays 15.3% in FICA tax?
Wow, Cain's plan would drop that down to just 9% or $2,700. Yeah, I can see how the LibProgs would get upset about that.
And if they spent their after tax money on a used car, an existing home, or on education tuition improving their earnings and job skills, that spending is sales tax exempt... Yup, the LibProgs REALLY don't wanna hear about that part of Cain's plan.
Yup... far better to shout that Cain's 999 plan would increase taxes on most Americans.
That’s $650 more, period, genius. I don't to hear any spin.
Although the family would save almost $4,000 in Social Security taxes, it would have to give up the child tax credit worth the same amount. Furthermore, it would pay an additional national sales tax of 9 percent on everything purchased, including groceries and clothes, which totals about $2,000.
That means under the Cain plan that family could end up paying $2,725 more.
A remedial math class might be In order for you .
Also, the sales tax component of Cain's plan has four exempted items; used goods, tuition, investments and B-to-B transactions. A family choosing to buy an existing home, a used car, or tuition for their child or for night classes to increase their earnings & job skills would not be subject to the 9% sales tax. But that's only applicable if the tax comparison considers the dynamic changes instead of simply doing a static analysis. The static comparison assumes that all spending is on taxable sales. And you are right about the tax increases if you only look at the Cain plan as a static exercise.
But almost all of the taxpayers on my planet live a dynamic life and change their income and consumption habits when the tax law changes. But please go on with your lecture... it’s quite entertaining.
http://www.miamiherald.com/20...
-For those with incomes below $10,000, under Cain's plan, the average tax increase would be $1,122;
-For $10,000-$20,000, the average tax increase would be $2,705.
-For $20,000-$30,000, the average tax increase would be $3,833.
-For $30,000-$40,000, the average tax increase would be $4,196.
-For $40,000-$50,000, the average tax increase would be $4,399.
-For $50,000-$75,000, the average tax increase would be $4,326.
-For $75,000-$100,000, the average tax increase would be $4,368.
-For $100,000-$200,000, the average tax increase would be $2,105.
Looked at another way, the lowest fifth would see an average tax increase of $1,854.
The second-highest fifth would see an average tax increase of $3,898.
The third-highest would see an average tax increase of $4,330.
The fourth-highest would see an average tax increase of $4,299.
And the top 20 percent would see an average tax cut of $14,442.
All of those are based on the assumption that the Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.
Thanks Chgo
I'm afraid I can't make it clearer or dumb it down for you, hillbilly. Some Ritalin or better reading comprehension skills might be in order for you.
FICA is 7.65 percent for employees. Both don't pay 15.35 percent. What part don't you get? whatever spin or twist, convoluted logic you're trying do here is not working. I'm way ahead of you. you can't think quick enough.
"A family choosing to buy an existing home, a used car, or tuition for their child or for night classes to increase their earnings & job skills would not be subject to the 9% sales tax."
That sales taxes applies to all, genius. Whatever is in his new 9-0-9 tax code is meaningless to me and others because the guy has no chance in the primaries to begin with.
Tuition exemptions and b-to-b transaction are already in the current tax code, ignoramus. I don't know why you think I care about the "investment exemptions"
A 300% drop in what the wealthy pay in income taxes.
And a 100% to 200% increase in what the poor and middle class pay in sales taxes.
Now there is a plan 2% of Americans can get behind!
Predicting everything that will happen in the economy doesn't seem possible. There are too many factors.
Wow, Cain's plan would drop that down to just 9% or $2,700.
Yeah, I can see how the wealth envy folks could get upset about that.
Both parties pay half of these taxes. Employees pay half, and employers pay the other half. Together both halves of the FICA taxes add up to 15.3%. The 15.3% FICA tax is broken down as follows:
Social Security (Employee pays 6.2%)
Social Security (Employer pays 6.2%)
Medicare (Employee pays 1.45%)
Medicare (Employer pays 1.45%)
So, how much do I cost you in wage compensation to me?
The correct answer is $107.65.
Your balance sheet is going to reflect a labor cost of $107.65 regardless of who gets paid what.
So using my 'marginal intellectual capacity', if your total labor cost is $107.65, and I net $92.35, it appears that the tax is 15.3% which is what I said.
But for the rest of us... 999 is 666 in an upside down mirror. So send the Herman Cain Campaign fund $9 to support his 999 plan
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3...
http://www.politifact.com/vir...
•President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
•President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
•President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
•President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
•President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
•President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
•President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
And you're right. Most "libs" including me DO let facts get in the way when conservatives like you post nonsensical fantasies that DON'T let facts get in the way.
"President Obama would double it." Last time I check, school budget are determined and approved by city school boards. not the president of the Us.
More than $3 trillion was lost in the by the recession, not Obama's policies. do your research next time.
Deficit = Spending - Revenue
We don't have a spending problem we have a revenue problem. Revenue is at a 60 year low. The is becuase of the massive tax cuts passed under Republican controlled Congresses then signed by Reagan and Bush2.
Obama has not proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new "government" health care fund."
Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare. thefuture savings from Medicare are planned to offset new costs created by the law. But the way cons phrases it gives the impression that the law takes money that was already allocated to Medicare and funds the new health care law with it. In fact, the law uses a number of measures to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Those savings are then applied to costs created by the law -- especially coverage for the uninsured -- so that the overall law doesn't add to the deficit. www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...
The math usesd by the dems and the pres left out all kinds of things like payments to DRs in the budget presented to the CBO, which skewed their math. hence the term fuzzy math. Which is what the left always seems to use.
You don't sound very bright. The housing bubble popped around mid-2007. (that's months after the democrats gained control, genius.). The house price index such as the Case-Shiller index showed the identification of real estate bubble very steadily peaking from 2000 to 2007 and then sharply lowering in 2008:
Most Economists argue that housing market indicators can be used to identify real estate bubbles.
The republicans during 2000 to the end of 2006 were asleep at the wheel when the housing bubble popped in 2007. The democrats inherited this economic crisis. The 2008 recession just made things worse.
The 2009 deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year Obama took office, con. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) already projected the 2009 deficit for the fiscal year in a January 2009 report. (that's just prior to Obama being sworn in as president). the government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released that estimate. It straddled both Bush's and Obama's terms).
According to the CBO report, "The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1....
You don't sound very bright. The housing bubble popped around mid-2007. (that's months after the democrats gained control, genius.). The house price index such as the Case-Shiller index showed the identification of real estate bubble very steadily peaking from 2000 to 2007 and then sharply lowering in 2008:
Most Economists argue that housing market indicators can be used to identify real estate bubbles.
The republicans during 2000 to the end of 2006 were asleep at the wheel when the housing bubble popped in 2007. The democrats inherited this economic crisis. The 2008 recession just made things worse.
The 2009 deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year Obama took office, con. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) already projected the 2009 deficit for the fiscal year in a January 2009 report. (that's just prior to Obama being sworn in as president). the government's nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released that estimate. It straddled both Bush's and Obama's terms).
According to the CBO report, "The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP."
In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99...
The CBO cited a number of factors for why the federal fiscal situation would be "dramatically worse" in 2009 than 2008.
In addition, the CBO noted, as a result of the recession, the federal government boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance.
Again, this was the deficit projection for 2009 before Obama took office. The CBO acknowledged it might get worse,and they were right.
"That total ($1.2 trillion deficit), however, does not include the effects of any future legislation," the CBO noted. "Enactment of an economic stimulus package, for example, would add to the 2009 deficit."
CBO also predicted the 2010 deficits in January 2010 too. The said: " The Congressional Budget Office projects that if current laws and policies remained unchanged, the federal budget would show a deficit of $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010. That amount would be slightly smaller than the 2009 deficit but, as a share of the economy as a whole (measured by gross domestic product, or GDP), it would still be the second largest since World War II. The budget picture remains daunting beyond this year, with deficits averaging about $600 billion annually from 2011 through 2020.
The large 2009 and 2010 deficits reflect a combination of factors: an imbalance between revenues and spending that predates the recession and turmoil in financial markets, sharply lower revenues and elevated spending associated with those economic conditions, and the costs of various federal policies implemented in response to those conditions.
With all this said, You sound like one pathetic hillbilly degenerate.For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in.Obama has every right to place much of the blame at the feet of his predecessor Bush because...um... it is his fault. He borrowed and spent $7 trillion, that's with a "T", in the span of 8 years.
of course, the Democrat-controlled Congress did pass a massive economic stimulus package. And, in fact, due in large part to the stimulus, the actual deficit for 2009 ended up about $200 billion more than the CBO projected in January 2009.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/10...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/10...