Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 8:54 AM Reply   
As you've probably seen me post before regarding corp welfare, I'll say 9.9.9 if implemented as advertised would destroy the healthcare system and quite possibly Wall Street. But as we all know, nothing is as advertised.

I'm not advocating 9,9,9, just saying. Plus you can darn well bet that we would get the worst of 9,9,9 and the best of it would be negated by tax loopholes.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-17-2011, 9:54 AM Reply   
I'm in favor of anything that lowers payroll tax however, equal income tax across tax brackets as proposed by this plan is regressive. Therefore, I'm not supportive. From the Reep side of things, I think Huntsman's tax plan makes more sense. Not to mention it maintains a progressive income tax. Though CPA's would probably oppose the simplification of the tax code as proposed by Huntsman.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 10:31 AM Reply   
One has to wonder how SS would continue to exist with no payroll taxes. I guess the govt could just calculate your contributions, add some interest, and pay up. LOL, not in a million years.

I was alluding to the fact that if the tax code was really simplified to eliminate *all* deductions that Wall Street and Health Insurance companies would take a huge hit if not crumble under the weight of their lost welfare. Of course we all know that pension plans and employer provided healthcare benefits would still be untaxed. Which makes the whole 9,9,9 a lie.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-17-2011, 11:00 AM Reply   
I have not done enough research, but have read that this plan actually benefits the rich, but I take that with a grain of salt because I think mainstream media is full of lies.

I like the idea of a simle flat tax even if it mean my taxes go up. The key for me is that EVERYONE pays the same. Just remember that %9 x 3 + %9 added for most state tax is really %36
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-17-2011, 11:06 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Of course we all know that pension plans and employer provided healthcare benefits would still be untaxed. Which makes the whole 9,9,9 a lie.
I don't understand this statement. Any type of retirement (pension or 401k) should be before taxes. We all pay tax on that money when it's time to cash in and both have caps. I dont see a issue with healthcare also be prior to taxes. how both these factors make this program a lie or unfair?
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-17-2011, 11:08 AM Reply   
SS without massive reform and an influx of revenue will likely fail before I retire anyways. I don't expect nor should I expect with the crap stewardship of my elders, to ever receive this benefits. So why should I contribute to a failing system?

Wall Street is more adaptable and dynamic than that. There is a lot more involved than being able to deduct retirement savings. As for HCI, as long as people need healthcare and the government doesn't regulate the industry (I'm thinking regulation like public utilities would be appropriate) then they will continue to prosper at a cost to society. Failed promises of Obamacare, left behind for political expediency. The public should have withdrawn support the moment the HC insurers changed their positions from oppose to support. Another boondoggle that will cost the employed and their employers.

And I do believe there are positives to deductions but in reality you can make the case for almost anything which gets us to the complexity of our system now. I'm in favor of cleaning the slate and starting fresh. But the political reality is that this is not a political reality. Campaign proposals rarely make it through Congress. So this is just a theoretical exercise.

Last edited by norcalrider; 10-17-2011 at 11:12 AM.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 11:29 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter View Post
I don't understand this statement. Any type of retirement (pension or 401k) should be before taxes. We all pay tax on that money when it's time to cash in and both have caps. I dont see a issue with healthcare also be prior to taxes. how both these factors make this program a lie or unfair?
Shooter, Cain claims the 9,9,9 plan will eliminate the complex IRS tax rules. If *all* income is the same then contributions to healthcare and pensions would not be deductible because you will need special tax rules to allow. If it's income you pay 9%. The lie is that it won't do that. And quite frankly that would be the only thing good about 9,9,9.

The 9,9,9 plan will raise taxes for everyone who isn't a big earner. I haven't looked into that deeply, but I would guess you'd need to be making 200K plus before seeing a benefit. That's a guess.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 11:33 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
SS without massive reform and an influx of revenue will likely fail before I retire anyways. I don't expect nor should I expect with the crap stewardship of my elders, to ever receive this benefits. So why should I contribute to a failing system?
Mik, I wrote the same thing 20+ years ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
Wall Street is more adaptable and dynamic than that. There is a lot more involved than being able to deduct retirement savings.
Wall Street might survive w/ injuries, but not heathcare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcalrider View Post
As for HCI, as long as people need healthcare and the government doesn't regulate the industry (I'm thinking regulation like public utilities would be appropriate) then they will continue to prosper at a cost to society.
If you remove deductions for HI and tax both employer and employee contributions with the option to take the pay instead. Heathcare will go into shock. If you just think about all the people getting free heathcare through their employer suddenly getting taxed and having the option to take it as pay.... Well say no more. It's over for the HI industry.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-17-2011, 12:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Mik, I wrote the same thing 20+ years ago.

Wall Street might survive w/ injuries, but not heathcare.

If you remove deductions for HI and tax both employer and employee contributions with the option to take the pay instead. Heathcare will go into shock. If you just think about all the people getting free heathcare through their employer suddenly getting taxed and having the option to take it as pay.... Well say no more. It's over for the HI industry.
I'm ok with this...its a free market. The government will need to get tough though and not pay for any healthcare for the uninsured or the tax payer will be paying for it all. I'm not really sure how Obama care factors in to this scenario
Old    SamIngram            10-17-2011, 1:18 PM Reply   
The 9-9-9 Plan: Is The Herman Cain Tax Plan A Good Idea?
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-17-2011, 1:30 PM Reply   
Yes John but under your HC scenario the country would have to be prepared to let people who decline coverage die, doesn't that seem somewhat barbaric in nature?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Mik, I wrote the same thing 20+ years ago.

Wall Street might survive w/ injuries, but not heathcare.

If you remove deductions for HI and tax both employer and employee contributions with the option to take the pay instead. Heathcare will go into shock. If you just think about all the people getting free heathcare through their employer suddenly getting taxed and having the option to take it as pay.... Well say no more. It's over for the HI industry.
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-17-2011, 1:33 PM Reply   
Remember how outraged people were for the "No pay, no spray issue" and that was just letting someones house burn down. Your talking about letting people without HC die? seems like several steps backwards.
Old    Akadirtbikingdad (wakeboardingdad)      Join Date: Aug 2008       10-17-2011, 1:50 PM Reply   
I haven't done the math in a few years, but with my deductions and if things haven't changed, I am in the 13-14% range. When I do my taxes with my software, I fall far below in my losses, my stocks, my gains, it goes on and on, so maybe that is why my taxes, as a middle class taxpayer, seem low. I look at the 9-9-9 and see 9% when I earn and another 9% when I spend, which equals 18%, or thereabouts, right? That does not take into account the value added portion, if my bits and pieces listening is correct, which would also effect my bottom line percentage.

This will never fly as no one will eliminate the government jobs of the IRS. I would like to see a consumption tax myself, so it would catch the cash trades and be the most fair (in my eyes). However, it would create a black market economy and again shut down jobs for a lot of the IRS. Not gonna happen.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 1:54 PM Reply   
Erik, I'm just trying to convey some reality to what Cain is proposing. I'm not advocating anything.... Read my first post.

The point here is that the health insurance companies would collapse. People would be dropping it in droves. We have a disconnect between payroll as people understand it, and payroll as it really is. When employees get essentially free insurance they have no idea how much pay they are actually giving up. If they got taxed on that pay they would quickly learn. Of course they can't actually have that pay under the current system. Another form of corp welfare. You worked for it and your employer is willing to pay for it unless you'd rather take it as pay. Then it's not yours anymore.

The problem is that a healthcare industry funded under the current model is an industry built on corp welfare. It inflates costs and makes healthcare unaffordable for those who aren't in the club of people employed with good benefits. Combine that with a public opinion that these people don't have a right to healthcare and you see a moral expression perverted by ignorance.
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-17-2011, 2:07 PM Reply   
Fair enough to conclude that HC would collapse but so would society, if you have people opt out then get sick and we watch them die. Your point is easy to accept that HC industry would take a hit (I agree) but at what cost to society is my point. So under your idea we let people see how much they are actually paying, great and then they take the money they will be the first to complain when medical expenses have to come out of pocket. So if we don't have this "Corp Welfare" then we have a society of unisured people? Does that seem logical? I am not disagreeing w/your point on the HC industry, but what about the other side of the coin, what happens to the people who decline?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 2:10 PM Reply   
Just looking at the 2010 tax tables.... a married family of 3 netting about 90K (after HI and pension deductions) and only taking the stadard deduction (about 20K) only pays about slightly less than 11%. Now if you figure that the same family is getting 15K a year of HI and putting maybe another 10-15K into a 401K putting their effective income at up to 130K and they are now paying as low as an effective 7% total income tax.

Cain wants to bump you to 9% and then hit you with another 9% at the store. Plus all the other deductiions (charity, education, mortgage, medical, state sales tax, state income tax) are gone. Of course says he will eliminate payroll taxes, which will give you back about 7.5%. You can bet you won't get the employer's half even though it's your pay. But you kow Cains a businessman. And yeah forget about ever getting SS.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 2:17 PM Reply   
Erik, I totally get what you are saying. Here's where I am coming from.

1) Healthcare is over inflated. Other countries have as good healthcare for much lower costs.

2) We get too much healthcare. Too much of our healthcare in the GNP for a number of reasons. We are over medicated. Medications developed here are marketed overseas for less money (Thankyou GWB).

3) We don't use effective means of healthcare. Doctors are basically pill pushers. They should be putting people in dietary and exercise education programs instead of giving them pills. People think the pill is the cure, but it's just an ineffective medication that enriches corporations.

The govt subsidizes crap for food. People are essentually taught that crap for food is nurishiment. The govt actively prevents the use of any healthcare that isn't patented and benefiting a corp. Our healthcare is so "safe" that it's priced out of reach. And healthcare costs are a threat to the security of our nation.
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-17-2011, 2:24 PM Reply   
Thanks I understand what he wants to do, and no i don't agree with the proposal because of exactly what you said, you won't get the employers half. But you are inferring that people are not getting this pay that "they earned" because its directed by companies to HC as a form of "Corp Welfare". The problem is that there is an innate "risk premium" that comes with giving people this option, there is a real cost to society. In my opinion any proposal that gives individuals the right to decline coverage is laughable.
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-17-2011, 2:32 PM Reply   
I see where you’re coming from, but I only comment from personal experience.

1) As far as other countries with good healthcare, the only one I have been a part of several times was Canada because I played hockey up there. Personally the experiences I had with it don't compare with what I have received in the states with my PPO program. Now that is just from personal experience.
2) I am not a doctor and nor are you, so no disrespect, but I don't value the idea that we are over are under medicated coming from people without the proper education on the subject.
3) In my opinion it’s an individual’s responsibility to take care of themselves with diet and nutrition. If people don't respect themselves that can't look to someone else to care for them. I don't blame the government because people
have become lazy and let their kids just play video games instead of make them get out an exercise. But that again a discussion for another day.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 2:40 PM Reply   
Well first of all Cain hasn't even mentioned this. This is just what I see as the logical consequence of Cain doing what he says. In reality he won't. In the end we will just get the worst parts of his plan that benefits high earners.

The problem with our society is that we've legislated ourselves into a deep hole. We ship at least 1/2 trillion of our economy overseas each year. The only way to replace it is for the govt to borrow more or expand the money supply. Putting a stop to this would throw the economy into turmoil. All the cheap goods at WalMart or Home Deport would have to become expensive so we could employ domestic workers to make them at higher costs. In the meantime WalMart and Home Depot would go broke and people would lose their jobs. The upside is that the govt could stop digging a deeper hole.

More things that need changing? Govt needs to be downsized. Too much bloat and too much regulation. When someone suggests reducing regulation they mean for the big guys who can do a lot of damage to the environment. Not the little guys who are at the whim of some 2 bit govt employee on a power trip. Just look at the FDA calling natural foods illegal drugs and writing letters to companies saying the public is too ignorant to make choices about their health.

The only way out of this mess is sacrifice and honesty. Hard to find any honesty in the govt or any willingness for the public to sacrifice.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 2:45 PM Reply   
Erik,whether you value my opinion or not doesn't change the truth. Believe what you want, but I don't want to pay for your beliefs.

If it's the individual's responsibility to take care of their health then why is the govt responsible for making you buy health insurance with a lose it or lose it model of taking the money you worked for? If the govt forces people to buy HI, which overinflates healthcare then where is this mythical personal responsibility you speak of? You are the perfect spokesman for the status quo.
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-17-2011, 3:07 PM Reply   
John, You keep avoiding the question, so I will ask it again. Under your scenerio where we allow people to realize the "pay" instead of elect HC then does that mean we also let people die because they opted out of HC? So then you may criticize the HC system for being heartless?

Yes you read a few studies and now your opinion is the truth, classic soap box rhetoric! You raise questions and criticize but you fail to address the tough questions...you should be in politics.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-17-2011, 3:20 PM Reply   
Erik, I'm not proposing a specific scenario. I didn't say my opinion was the truth. The truth is debatable. You think that you should go to the people who make easy profits off of drugs to find out if they are really needed. Not what I would consider the smartest place to get the truth. You also have a lot more faith in the all encompassing wisdom of doctors. As a professional programmer and engineer for 30+ years I know that there is no such thing as someone who knows everything in their field. But I do know that there are plenty who want you to believe there is.

The first step to figuring out a problem is to become aware of it. I don't believe the level of awareness is very high. People think you should be able to buy the cheapest product no matter the country of origin, that the govt should balance it's budget, but have no sense of what happens when all the money leaves the domestic economy. The solution to healthcare will come from honesty and awareness.

I also see you side steped the issue of personal responsibility. You said people should be responsible for their health and the govt shouldn't intervene. You devoted a whole point item to it. But your tune changes when it comes to the govt intervening. What are you trying to say? That you want to run for public office?
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-18-2011, 7:19 AM Reply   
Wow you really are a politician answer a question with another question. Shows you are just like part of the problem in America, you stand up and throw stones yet you don't like to answer the hard questions. Unlike you I will answer your question.

I believe that health and health care are two separate issues. I think people have a responsibility to maintain a healthy life style (i.e. eating correctly, exercising, and promoting a general healthy environment. When it comes to HC yes the government should intervene, I don't think we should ever have a society where we have to leave someone to die because they declined coverage, IMO when that starts to happen we start to take steps back as a society.

Again I don't have the answer which is why I don't sit up my soap box and claim the HC industry are crooks or HC is "Corp Welfare". Your turn John, you say people should have the right to opt out of HC, so does that mean we let them die when they decline the coverage? I assume you will ignore it anyways.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-18-2011, 8:04 AM Reply   
Erik, it's easy to identify why things are the way they are if you open your eyes and pay attention. Think about the fundamentals and don't be puppet mastered. Giving the solution is an entirely different story. The reason I can't give you the answers is because there is no easy answer to all of our economic problems. Every solution is a double edged sword. There is no way to undo the damage without enduring the pain. The pain is coming eventually whether we choose to address the issues or not.

The answer you gave me is fluff. Heath and heath care are not two different issues. If people choose to be unhealthy, but insist that everyone else share the burden of their healthcare then where is the personal responsibility? And how are the two separate issues? Your answer is a non answer. You claim that the solution is for society to take steps, but the idea that the govt which (in theory) represents the collective will of society should not be giving advice.

Lastly I see that you feel there anyone who observes a problem but cannot give a definitive solution is not allowed to state the problem observed. Let's think about this. An Astronomer observes asteroids and concludes that it's a probability that one will wipe or cause great damage in the near future. He goes before Congress and states this. Congress says if you can't tell us how to stop the asteroid then stop telling people. IOW, you're Congress.

I can give you some answers...

1) Kill the govt welfare for HI companies and let the free market sort it out.
2) Observe how other nations provide HC and at much lower per capita rate and implement changes.
3) Find ways to provide care with lower qualified individuals (nurses vs doctors) when appropriate.
4) Tort reform.
5) Scale back regulation, reduce FDA powers and let the free market provide other alternative treatment.
6) Reduce FDA fees to review data and lower the financial barrier.
7) Find ways to provide treatment for poor people instead of making ER's their only access to HC.
8) Create programs where people can get education on how to eat properly and that isn't corrupted by special interests that profit off bad food.
9) Kill subsidies for poor qualify food sources like corn and soy, and move them to fresh whole vegetables.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but why does the govt pay millions for expert advice, get bad answers, implement bad solutions, and then a computer programmer has to tell everyone what's up.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-18-2011, 10:07 AM Reply   
I'm on the fence regarding HC and Fly is right on about any answer is a double edge sword. If you feel everyone should have access to HC, then you better be prepared to pay for it. I can barley afford medical for me and my family ($1,300 a month for a HMO). I don't think people should be left to die, but why should I bust my a$$ for everyone else to get it for free.

Here is a scenario I see everyday...Transient who is a drunk / drug addict and has made the conscious decision to live his life that way. He spends everyday of his life destroying his body and has nothing positive to offer society. He walks into the ER and they can not refuse him service. The hospital / taxpayer gives him thousands in treatment while I sit in the waiting room because the hospital is full. The transient will later be released only to go back to his life of drinking & drugs.

As a taxpayer, I can think of much better things to spend the money our country does not have.
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-18-2011, 10:15 AM Reply   
I am not saying don't give advice, if you look back at the other thread I actually said I wish there were more people that were out there trying to formulate an opinion. Just because I don't like your opinion does not mean that I don't respect the fact that you took time to actually formulate one. I am simply trying to see what your opinion is which is why I ask the question. I do think you are a coward because you don't want to stand up for your opinion. I think you should just say what you keep dancing around:

If in order to fix the HC system and get rid of the government subsidize we will have to be willing to let people die because they don't have coverage and the greater good of society should not be burden with their expense, just say so it’s what you keep inferring.


Lastly, how can you say they are not 2 different issues, so you mean to tell me that a person with cancer is grouped into the same demographic as people with obesity problems? That’s crazy!! One major problem with the HC system is that it is not established this way with regard to employer HC programs (which is why I see part of your point) you are correct someone who doesn't take care of themselves and doesn't attempt to live a healthy life shouldn't pay the same as someone who does, I believe that is part of your point if i can dig through all of the craziness.
Old    Erik (kinger)      Join Date: Jun 2007       10-18-2011, 10:18 AM Reply   
Thanks McGavin for finally giving a straight answer that John refuses to live up to. When you let free market sort it out we must be prepared to let some people lose. I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just not completely sold yet on this as the solution, but it may be the only way.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-18-2011, 10:22 AM Reply   
How much are you willing to pay for medical treatment of someone who doesn't care about their own health ..10%, 20%, 30%? The current strain on the middle class is unsustainable. We are tired of making the 1% disgustingly rich and supporting the the millions who don't want to work.
Old    Mik (norcalrider)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-18-2011, 10:32 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter View Post
How much are you willing to pay for medical treatment of someone who doesn't care about their own health ..10%, 20%, 30%? The current strain on the middle class is unsustainable. We are tired of making the 1% disgustingly rich and supporting the the millions who don't want to work.
We are already paying those people. So the options are limited, create a regulatory structure that accounts for geographical cost of living differences and mandate pricing on procedures from there which in turn will limit the wild fluctuation in costs based on various insurers, hospitals and plans. OR, deny people healthcare if they lack the funds or coverage. I would opt for the first option though we just adopted Obamacare which won't even address something as common sense as that.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-18-2011, 10:35 AM Reply   
Erik, I can't give you a straight answer because there is no straight answer. What am I a coward about? You literally make no sense. You said I'm crazy for grouping overweight diabetics (obesity) with cancer patients? WTF? I never even addressed such a thing.

You read far too much into what I post. I am sympathetic to the fact that HC is overpriced and people can't get access. I am sympathetic that people are overweight because we have a obesity producing culture. Did you read the part about people needing to be taught about proper nutrition, that govt pushes bad food on us, and is too corrupted by special interests to tell us not to eat all the crap it subsidizes. This is an equation with so many parameters that you can't sort it out with easy solutions.

First you identify the problems. Don't go into denial because it's too complex a task to deal with. It's a complicated issue. I can't even begin to fathom how you can be looking to me for all the answers clearly laid out on a forum.
Old    Randy Paul (wakeskatethis)      Join Date: May 2011       10-18-2011, 8:34 PM Reply   
time to wake up to reality people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhMacPvc5qc
Old    SamIngram            10-19-2011, 1:50 PM Reply   
The new and improved 9-9-9 will be a 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate income tax, and a 9% payroll tax.

Now instead of a national sales tax the architects of the plan, Art Laffer and Steve Moore are suggesting a 9% payroll tax. I like this better, this way, only those will jobs will pay the 9%...

An architect of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan says he should drop sales tax

The Quickly Evolving 9-9-9

This would also help keep Big Brother out of my second had car, eBay, and yard sales... except in Louisiana where the use of cash is outlawed in the sale and purchase of second hand goods...
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       10-19-2011, 4:05 PM Reply   
It would certainly simplifying tax law, which is a good thing. I am not crazy about it.

If you are the type to favor a progressive tax structure I think a better solution would be a national sales tax as the ONLY form of federal revenue collection. Call it 25%, or 35%, or whatever. Only well to do and rich people would be paying a lot into this. Poor people don't buy new things (or shouldn't, if they're genuinely poor and "in need of assistance"). This would allow for the poor to buy their luxuries second hand and avoid taxes and also for those unhappy with the federal government spending and policy to simply not pay into it if they so choose. There you have a simple and progressive tax that maintains a level of respect for freedom and individual liberty in that everyone chooses how much to contribute.

I think a better way to tax would be to simply charge everyone in the country their fair share of the federal budget. There are several ways to do this. A truly fair and equal tax burden works out to $11,504.62 per person using 2010 numbers. This is not unreasonable at all. What about children though? If this were to be the system I would say parents pay their children's share through age 18. What about the elderly? They should plan for taxes in retirement. Currently you pay taxes on that money in one form or another either now or later. This method of taxation ensures fairness and government will not run up a debt. It is already illegal to run a deficit in the budget. This method would also get folks, particularly lower income folks, involved in government and policy and you would quickly see federal spending decrease significantly.

Alternatively, Don't distribute the tax to children or the elderly. Distributing the tax burden only over those 18-64 each person will pay $18,281.39. Again I would consider this a fair way to tax people. Eliminate all entitlement programs and the tax burden on each person drops by about 25%. 25% of spending is on military and fighting unconstitutional wars where we were the aggressor. Surely that can be cut at least in half. There are lots of other programs that can be cut. It would be very easy to cut the federal budget, and thus the tax burden on each individual, by at least 50%... And that just spending a few hours cutting the big ones. This would surely happen within a few years of such a truly fair and equal tax program.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-20-2011, 7:46 AM Reply   
I think the 9-9-9 plan will, ultimately, cost Cain the election. We pay 9.25% sales tax here in TN as it is. The thought of 18.25% is absurd unless you don't plan on purchasing anything. The only people that would benefit from this plan would be the wealthy. Plus, how long would it be before it became 11-11-11 or 15-15-15?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2011, 8:08 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
I think a better way to tax would be to simply charge everyone in the country their fair share of the federal budget. There are several ways to do this. A truly fair and equal tax burden works out to $11,504.62 per person using 2010 numbers.
It's worth mentioning that this is your definition of "fair". Not everyone agrees to this.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2011, 8:13 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
The new and improved 9-9-9 will be a 9% personal income tax, a 9% corporate income tax, and a 9% payroll tax.
What is the rationale of a payroll tax? Is this a lowering of the FICA tax. Or an elimination of the FICA tax to be replaced with a payroll tax that has no retirement benefit? Anyone that thinks Cain is on to something is nothing more than an idiot. Sorry if you read this and the shoe fits.
Old    SamIngram            10-20-2011, 10:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
What is the rationale of a payroll tax? Is this a lowering of the FICA tax. Or an elimination of the FICA tax to be replaced with a payroll tax that has no retirement benefit? Anyone that thinks Cain is on to something is nothing more than an idiot. Sorry if you read this and the shoe fits.
I think the basis of the plan is eliminate the current US Tax Code. Have you ever seen it, in its entirety? If anyone believes that the current US Tax Code doesn't need to be revised, shortened, or completely eliminated they are a complete idiot... Hell, even the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner can't figure it out.

Anyone who thinks that the President of the United States is responsible for the US Tax Code doesn't even remotely understand the US Constitution. US Tax Code is a function of the Congress, namely Title 26 of the United States Code. Only congress can change it, the President of the United States can only try to direct the change, nothing more, and then sign or veto the law as written.

I think Herman Cain is on to something when he says that the current tax code needs to be revised, simplified, and configured where the law applies equally to everyone. It needs to be revised so that the government is not able to pick winners and losers. In a Republic the law applies equally to everyone. In a Democracy, the government picks with the winners and losers, and the law doesn't apply equally to everyone.

According to you, I am a complete idiot, what are you?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2011, 10:58 AM Reply   
I never said anything about wanting to keep the tax code as it exists. And I evaluate a potential President based on his ideas. I never said that whatever a President wants is what he gets. Cain's proposal is idiotic. So anyone who believes that what Cain proposes is a good idea is probably going to benefit financially as opposed to the current tax code, or is an idiot. Cain's tax code would be wonderful for a filing single earner making a decent wage. Which are you?
Old    SamIngram            10-20-2011, 11:15 AM Reply   
What Cain is doing, and what the others will soon follow him in doing, is making the suggestion that we change our tax code. He had his advisors came up with a plan, a starting point, to get the ball rolling. I have never seen someone come up with a plan that is 100% on the first try or by themselves. A good plan evolves over time and is added to by many people. The one common element with every good plan is that it started with an idea and then gets revised over time.

Perry will soon follow with his plan, a flat tax. Cain has successfully directed the political debate in the direction that he wants.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2011, 11:39 AM Reply   
I simply don't understand why advisers coming up with a bad plan speaks well for a candidate. However, I do understand why a good plan would never fly. The bottom line is that you can't get money from where it doesn't exist. A flat tax isn't workable. IMO, a real candidate with real ideas would develop a set of goals rather than just state a simplistic plan. For example, some goals would be...

1) Target a zero trade deficit and zero net govt foreign spending to protect the domestic money supply.
2) Eliminate group pension plans and make sure any benefit is in a plan owned by the individual. This means the individual does not have his pension trapped. Any pension can be rolled into an individual IRA.
3) Eliminate any differences in types of plans so that no advantage is given to any individual based on who has employed them.
4) Target a reduction in healthcare costs by allowing individuals the right to their healthcare benefits as pay instead of use it on HI or lose it.
5) Simplify the IRS code to reduce or eliminate itemization. Keep the progressive tax structure and basic family exemptions.

Those are goals. Simplistic ideas like Cain's are so transparently dumb that it only makes the candidate look silly and really doesn't reveal what he stands for except raising taxes on families, both poor and middle class alike.

Last edited by fly135; 10-20-2011 at 11:42 AM.
Old    SamIngram            10-20-2011, 12:00 PM Reply   
First, I can easily agree with 80% of your list...

Second, maybe you haven't heard anyone ask, "What is your plan?" Many people have, including Obama, Biden, and the press.

Third, I guess that you have never ran for president... Cain's plan is controversial and everyone is talking about. It is all over the media. Cain is currently winning several polls and has even been called the front runner... What is Cain's goal? Make you happy or win his party's nomination? Yes, I guess he is dumb and I am an idiot...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2011, 12:12 PM Reply   
Since you put it that way... Cain will not win the GOP nomination. It's only a matter of time till republicans are educated to what I said.
Old    SamIngram            10-20-2011, 1:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Since you put it that way... Cain will not win the GOP nomination. It's only a matter of time till republicans are educated to what I said.
Please enlighten me as to who will win the nomination...

What do you think you have said that republicans need to be educated on?

I will never vote for Multiple-Choice Romney, he flip-flops and sways with the wind like no other. He can get no more than 25% in the polls and very few people like him at my district meetings (My district is over 50% LDS BTW).

Although Perry can raise money and had lots of backers he doesn't have a good record when it comes to the major issues, at least in my opinion. I doubt Bachmann can win, along with the other candidates. Cain has good support among conservatives and business owners from what I can see locally.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-20-2011, 1:23 PM Reply   
Here's an interesting analogy of 9-9-9 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/84-wou...&asset=&ccode=
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-20-2011, 1:27 PM Reply   
^If you won't vote for Romney, that leaves you Obama or a third party candidate. I believe that Romney will be the GOP candidate, but that is going to wreak havoc with the conservative christian vote. Maybe another Perot situation brewing?

But if I remember correctly, you predicted that either Bachmann or Palin would be our next president.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2011, 1:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Please enlighten me as to who will win the nomination...
Sam, I can't tell you who will get it for sure but my odds say Romney at this time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
What do you think you have said that republicans need to be educated on?
I posted it in this thread. Here it is again.

"Just looking at the 2010 tax tables.... a married family of 3 netting about 90K (after HI and pension deductions) and only taking the stadard deduction (about 20K) only pays about slightly less than 11%. Now if you figure that the same family is getting 15K a year of HI and putting maybe another 10-15K into a 401K putting their effective income at up to 130K and they are now paying as low as an effective 7% total income tax.

Cain wants to bump you to 9% and then hit you with another 9% at the store."


I'd say any "family" under at least the 80 percentile will be paying more in taxes.

Of course Cain can back pedal on eliminating all those tax codes to bring people back into the fold. Quite frankly if Cain actually would follow through on precisely what he claims I would consider voting for him simply because I'm a bit of an anarchist and he would certainly destroy the status quo and throw the economy into a state of shock. But I'm also a pragmatist and know that he won't or I should say can't. So there is no way I want the worst of what we would get from Cain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I will never vote for Multiple-Choice Romney, he flip-flops and sways with the wind like no other. He can get no more than 25% in the polls and very few people like him at my district meetings (My district is over 50% LDS BTW).
I'm not basing my predictions on you because I don't see you in the middle of the bell curve.
Old    SamIngram            10-20-2011, 1:42 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
^If you won't vote for Romney, that leaves you Obama or a third party candidate. I believe that Romney will be the GOP candidate, but that is going to wreak havoc with the conservative christian vote. Maybe another Perot situation brewing?

But if I remember correctly, you predicted that either Bachmann or Palin would be our next president.
I doubt Romney will be the nominee, and yes I would have loved to vote for Palin. I doubt Romney can even win in my district, with heavy LDS membership, let alone the country. If Romney wins the nomination I will vote for Obama. I won't go into my reasoning, but I will vote for Obama if it is between Obama and Romney.

I just want all people to be taxed equally and for the government not to be able to pick winners and losers. The guy making $1,000,000 should be taxed the same as the guy making $100, they should pay the same percentage.

Last edited by SamIngram; 10-20-2011 at 1:45 PM.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2011, 1:43 PM Reply   
Oh BTW the family mentioned above is at the top earning level of the majority who would suffer. Those below that would suffer even more.

Also I have to wonder when you say business owners, who do you mean? Do they have any idea what a 9% increase in retail price will do to their sales? Seeing all that money go to the govt by virtue of increasing their product prices should put them in shock. Why not just throw a 9% tariff on all imported goods instead of a sales price. This would allow American manufacturers to have a fighting chance. This kind of ignorance astounds me.

Last edited by fly135; 10-20-2011 at 1:48 PM.
Old    SamIngram            10-20-2011, 2:05 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Also I have to wonder when you say business owners, who do you mean? Do they have any idea what a 9% increase in retail price will do to their sales? Seeing all that money go to the govt by virtue of increasing their product prices should put them in shock. Why not just throw a 9% tariff on all imported goods instead of a sales price. This would allow American manufacturers to have a fighting chance. This kind of ignorance astounds me.
Uh, I didn't say that business owners or even myself liked the 9 9 9 plan. I said that many of the business owners I know and see, support Cain. His plan is far from perfect, but he does have the right idea.

Personally I think we should first tax EVERYONE EQUALLY as a percentage of their overall income and that the rate should be very, very high. Lets start it out at a 40% flat rate, no deductions or anything else. If you make it so everyone has to pay 40% of their income no matter what then maybe everyone, including the poor, will start to look at all the waste in their government. Maybe then we can have a real conversation about reducing the size of government.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2011, 2:11 PM Reply   
Sounds like the Obama plan... Nobody figured he could do what he said, but liked his philosophy better than the opponents. Turned out that was a failure.

I see where you are coming from. Tax the crap out of everyone and then everyone will come together to get rid of govt waste. I could see how that could work.
Old    SamIngram            10-20-2011, 2:27 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Tax the crap out of everyone and then everyone will come together to get rid of govt waste. I could see how that could work.
Yes, that is what I think. No able-bodied person should get a free ride or be exempt from the government's mismanagement of our tax dollars.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-21-2011, 6:00 AM Reply   
"Personally I think we should first tax EVERYONE EQUALLY as a percentage of their overall income and that the rate should be very, very high. Lets start it out at a 40% flat rate, no deductions or anything else."

You are the only conservative I have heard lately mentioning raising taxes. Didn't all of the GOP candidates have to sign a pledge with some lobbying group vowing not to raise taxes?

Onto the nomination. Let's look at the top 3. Cain, Perry, and Romney. (I could possibly see maybe Gingrich gaining some ground, but I feel him getting the nomination is highly unlikely). Cain, I think once his 9 9 9 plan gets further dissected I think he will start losing ground. Perry, I see a lot of Bush Jr. in him. Plus, I think with the comments his preacher made and Perry not denouncing them loses him the independent vote.
Old    Adam R (wakecumberland)      Join Date: Oct 2007       10-21-2011, 7:26 AM Reply   
Disclosure: I dont think Cain's plan is without fault, but these are some good thigns to consider:

What has not been discussed about Cain's 9,9,9 plan is the elimination of taxes.

Payroll:
Don't forget that in 2011, the employer paid 7.65% of your payroll in SS/Medicare (effectively reducing your pay) and you paid 5.65%. The elimination of that alone will make up for the 9% income tax under Cain's plan. So combined, you are paying direct/indrect FICA of 13.3%. If you are self employed you pay the 13.3% all yourself.

Income Tax:
So far this year, claiming 3 deductions, I have paid 13% in federal income witholdings. Now that number will likely drop after I do my return but not by much. So now with Payroll/Federal Income tax combined I am at 26.3%.

Corporate Tax
The Corporate tax rate in this country is higher than anywhere in the world at 35%. Now, most corporations don't pay that high after all deductions are taken into account but its likely the average rate is somewhere in the mid 20% area. Do you think that affects the average American? You bet it does! The corporations are going to raise the price of their goods to offset the tax. Proctor and Gamble, makers of Tide detergent and Crest toothpaste, pay about 25% a eyar. Do you think they maybe albe to cometitively lower their prices if they knew their tax rate was dropping to 9%? I believe they would, lowering the cost of goods to all of us rich and poor.

Conclusion:
While I would rather have zero income tax, zero savings tax and drastic federal spending cuts, (similar to Ron Paul's Restore America Plan ) at least Herman Cain's plan moves us in the right direction of not punishing people for being productive. That's the real error in the progressive tax structure. If I work harder to earn another dollar, Uncle Sam is going to take more of that next dollar than he did the last! It's absurdity. No Tax plan will work without drastic cuts in federal spending. At current spending rates, nobody wins.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-21-2011, 8:17 AM Reply   
"Herman Cain's plan moves us in the right direction of not punishing people for being productive."

How so exactly? Fox News reported today that 84% of Americans will pay more tax under Cain's plan. Maybe you and I have a different idea of what productive is. The guy laying block making 10.00 an hour (this guy would be part of the 84%) can be just as productive as the CEO making millions a year. So how is the block layer not being punished for being "productive"?

"Proctor and Gamble, makers of Tide detergent and Crest toothpaste, pay about 25% a eyar. Do you think they maybe albe to cometitively lower their prices if they knew their tax rate was dropping to 9%?"

Not necessarily. P&G (as with any corporation) is going to try to maximize profits. I think it is narrow-minded to assume that if P&G (or any other corporation), is going to drastically lower prices if Cain's plan was enacted. Again, what is to stop the 9 % corporate tax (or the other two taxes) from becoming 15%?
Old    Adam R (wakecumberland)      Join Date: Oct 2007       10-21-2011, 8:23 AM Reply   
By "moving in the right direction" I simply mean a discussion about the simplification of the tax code that doesn't look to benefit certain groups, individuals or corporations.

There is certainly no guarantee that prices would drop instantly, but the free market works and if P&G and all of its competitors also have room to cut prices and still maintain profit margins, I gurantee they will do that. It wont happen over night, but it will happen.

I agree 100% that there is no stopping the 9-9-9 plan from turning into the 15-15-15 or 20-20-20 plan. The spending is the main problem and thats really what we should be focusing on. If spending cuts are what you want (I do!), you want Ron Paul.

Last edited by wakecumberland; 10-21-2011 at 8:25 AM.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-21-2011, 9:29 AM Reply   
Adarm R your point is not made unless Cain clearly states he's ending SS and Medicare. You cannot say I'm eliminating payroll taxes, but ignore the consequence. If Cain wants to run on the platform of eliminating payroll tax he needs to man up and say that his platform is to kill SS/Medicare.

The problem with Cain is that he panders to the innate desire for people to pay low taxes without the honesty of stating what he is really going to do. Is he going to kill tax deductions for HC? Kill tax deductions for pension investment? Kill SS and Medicare? Is then he should run on that platform. Not feed the public candy so we can get the shaft again.

Also is Cain going to make the employer give you that extra 7.5% as payroll. You were earning it in the first place. Is he going to make the employer turn over his pension contribution to you now that it's taxed. You were earning it in the first place. Is he going to make the employer turn over his HI contribution to you? You were earning it in the first place.

My guess is that he would allow the employer to keep all that. IOW a pay cut for you.
Old    Adam R (wakecumberland)      Join Date: Oct 2007       10-21-2011, 12:08 PM Reply   
Its pretty easy to find. Per Herman's Website: "•Removes all payroll taxes and unites all tax payers" http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

Phase 2 is where is starts to really get good. His 9-9-9 generates the revenue necessary to replace all those taxes including payroll and not disrupt SS/medicare. The basis of this plan is called the Fair Tax. There is a big movement to try to get a vote on this. Read up on it here: http://www.fairtax.com

I respectfully suggest before you start blabbering about the effects of such an idea that you get your facts straight. It helps to read the plan and not make assumtions. Kinda like "We have to pass the bill to see whats in the bill".
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       10-21-2011, 12:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakecumberland View Post
at least Herman Cain's plan moves us in the right direction of not punishing people for being productive.
Any tax that is a percentage of income punishes people for being more productive. The more you make, the more you pay. The one method I can think of that absolutely does not and cannot punish people for being productive is a truly equal tax plan. If you live in this country, you can afford to pay your fair share of $11,504.62 annually. If everyone is paying equally it no longer makes any sense (not that it does now) to have any entitlement programs. Instant 25% reduction in government expense and subsequent reduction in individual taxes... So on that note, everyone in this country can afford to pay their fair share of $8,628.47. Other cuts would surely follow.

That is the only plan that absolutely does not punish people for being more productive and genuinely gives an incentive to be more productive (i.e. past your first $8,628.47 is all profit, aside from state taxes). In lower paying jobs there would be an instant demand for more pay, but with no business taxes there would be huge savings that could be distributed between workers demanding more pay and businesses having more profit. I would be curious to see the numbers on dollar amounts businesses pay and number of employees they have... To see how much a split of the new profit from no taxation might be allocated to payroll.

Alternatively my other idea of a sales tax (only) would not punish anyone for being more productive, only on how they spend their money. Essentiually it amounts to a luxury tax as the only source of federal income. The poor and lower classes should be all over this as their taxes would not tax them at all necessarily and allows them to decide how much to give the government in taxes. Those who are well off will be relatively unaffected, after not paying huge taxes on their income they have a LOT more to spend so the sales tax would be a lesser consideration.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-21-2011, 12:40 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakecumberland View Post
I respectfully suggest before you start blabbering about the effects of such an idea that you get your facts straight. It helps to read the plan and not make assumtions. Kinda like "We have to pass the bill to see whats in the bill".
I respectfully suggest you not require people to go read up on everything Cain has online before "allowing" them to comment on the issues raised by his claims. I simply said your point isn't fully made until those issues are addressed.. That wasn't rude or an attack on you.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-21-2011, 12:49 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
If you live in this country, you can afford to pay your fair share of $11,504.62 annually.
This statement makes no sense. Not everyone in this country even makes $11K. How could you possibly believe this to be true? Also paying tax is not a prerequisite for being alive or being in this country. It's a prerequisite for making money in this country.

Just from a theoretical standpoint is easy to make a case that every person born here has an inherent equal right to the resources and a piece of real estate and access to clean water just for existing. Of course that's debatable. But when the "fair" word gets thrown out all philosophies are up for examination.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       10-21-2011, 12:52 PM Reply   
"If you live in this country, you can afford to pay your fair share of $11,504.62 annually."

Tell this to an enlisted or junior officer in the US military.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-21-2011, 12:58 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakecumberland View Post
Its pretty easy to find. Per Herman's Website: "•Removes all payroll taxes and unites all tax payers" http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

Phase 2 is where is starts to really get good. His 9-9-9 generates the revenue necessary to replace all those taxes including payroll and not disrupt SS/medicare. The basis of this plan is called the Fair Tax. There is a big movement to try to get a vote on this. Read up on it here: http://www.fairtax.com

I respectfully suggest before you start blabbering about the effects of such an idea that you get your facts straight. It helps to read the plan and not make assumtions. Kinda like "We have to pass the bill to see whats in the bill".
Your link is bad and Cain's website does not reflect anything you said about Fair Tax covering SS/Medicare. See entitlements...

http://www.hermancain.com/the-issues

So maybe you should stop blabbering and quit making up your own version of Cain's plan.
Old    Adam R (wakecumberland)      Join Date: Oct 2007       10-21-2011, 2:13 PM Reply   
I didn't say you weren't allowed to comment, just that it would be helpful to have a basic understanding of his plan.

How is my link bad? It works fine for me and it clearly states "Removes all payroll taxes and unites all tax payers" SS/Medicare tax is included in what they call payroll tax. I guess Cain needs to come out and explain that part a little more clearly but that's the way I understand his plan. Revenue from 9-9-9 would replace all tax reciepts to support all government programs including entitlements. However, entitlements would still be reformed in Cain's overall plan.

Again, not saying I support all the details of this plan, but it starts the discussion and education of the electorate in what policies are possible in returning our country to economic prosperity.

In response to Cory's idea, I dont know that you could convince a dozen voters that is a good idea. Don't hold your breath.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-21-2011, 2:20 PM Reply   
fairtax.com is a generic web page for searches.

Again Cain's web site does not say anything about his tax plan supporting SS/Medicare. Your contradicting me and calling my post babbling is quite ironic since my post is a reasonable analysis of the issue, and your post is claiming something that appears not to exist on his web site.

I think you need to stick to Cain's claims and not make up your own and call them a basic understanding. Or give me a link to the specific claim you made.
Old    Adam R (wakecumberland)      Join Date: Oct 2007       10-21-2011, 8:35 PM Reply   
Sorry the link should have been www.fairtax.org

Herman's 9-9-9 plan is a spin off from the Fair Tax plan. The Fair Tax is simply a national sales tax on everything. No personal income or corporate tax. It supports SS/Medicare. You are right, Herman should clarify that point on his website. Specifics go a long way.

Back to my main point, the real issue is government is too big and too intrusive. Maybe we can agree on that. Spending cuts are the only way from avoiding a collapse of our government and economy. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that I am aware of who is calling for these massive cuts.

Speaking of specifics, like it or not, you can't get much more specific than this: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issue...store-america/
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-22-2011, 3:20 AM Reply   
Yes we can 100% agree on that. And I'm very much behind RP's huge cuts.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-23-2011, 9:08 AM Reply   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhgi-Ja3HbM&t=3m42s

oy vey

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:32 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us