Monday, October 17, 2011

Understanding Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan

Recently, a friend of mine asked me my thoughts about Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan, expressing concern about the addition of a 9% sales tax to he already pays, a total 8% sales tax in Upstate New York between state and local. He was concerned about seeing his sales tax increased to 17%.  I understand the concern, however, when the plan is explained more clearly, basically everybody is looking at a cut in their overall tax burden.

Before we proceed, it is important to understand that Cain does not intend 9-9-9 to be the permanent tax plan.  Rather it is Phase 1 of a two phase plan to institute the Fair Tax as the new tax system of the nation and completely erradicate our current system.  To read the entirety of the plan, visit Herman Cain's Website or Click Here to see the plan in PDF form.

One must remember that if you are paying taxes, you are paying not just your current income taxes but an additional 6.2% in payroll taxes.  So if we use the current Median Household Income of approximately $50,000 per year, let's look at what they would be paying in taxes under the current system vs the 9-9-9 Plan.

Under our current system, the family making $50,000 per year would be paying 25% Federal Income Tax and 6.2% Payroll Tax, for a total of a 31.2% tax burden.  Let's break that down:

$ 4166.66   Income Before Taxes
-  1041.68  Federal Income Tax (25%)
$ 3124.98 After Federal Income Tax

$  3124.98 After Federal Income Tax

$ 3124.98 After Federal Income Tax
-     258.33  Federal Payroll Tax (6.2%)
$    2866.65 After All federal Taxes

So under the current system:

Total Taxes paid: $1300.01 Monthly
Total Spendable Income: 2866.65 Monthly

Now under Cain's 9-9-9 Plan, all that would be replaced with a 9% income tax and a 9% sales tax.
$ 4166.66 Income Before Taxes
-    374.99 Income Tax (9% Rate)
$ 3791.67 After Income Tax   

$ 3261.67 Total Money After Paycheck

$ 3261.67 Total Money After Paycheck
-    327.30 Total Sales Tax (If 100% of Paycheck Spent)
$ 2934.37 Income After Taxes
So under the 9-9-9 Plan the median American family would have:

Total Taxes paid $702.29 Monthly
Total Spendable Income: $ 3498.12 Monthly

$597.72 LESS taxes paid each month.  That's $597.72 MORE MONEY in your pocket, every month! What would an extra nearly $600 per month do for you?  If the Median American family had $600 extra each month to spend, what do you think that would do for the economy?  I'll tell you what it'd do:  A whole lot.  You want to talk stimulus?  How about an extra $600 in the pockets of the average American family. 

You want to talk about fundamentally changing the American tax system to one that's fair?  How about a plan that taxes on what you buy, not on what you earn.  Also, remember that there are no taxes on used items, like a used car or purchasing an existing home.  By the numbers, the 9-9-9 Plan as written is good for America.

Now look,  I recognize the need for some very heavy safeguards in the program.  Requirement of a super-majority within the plan to raise the tax rates is one of them.  Without the safeguards, a lot can go wrong.  However, overall, I think if properly implemented it's a good plan.

7 comments:

  1. "Requirement of a super-majority within the plan to raise the tax rates is one of them."

    Here is the problem, only a constitutional amendment could place such a restriction on congress. In fact, only a constitutional amendment could restrict congress from adjusting rates or creating a progressive tax code both for the income tax AND for the sales tax.
    Yes, imagine a world where congress issues a sales tax reduction or elimination card based on your income. If you don't have it you pay 20% (yes they have raised the rates) but if you are for example on welfare you are tax reduced or exempt.

    I read a lot of your stuff. Very well argued. On this you give to much credit to future congressional honor or decency.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do agree there are some issues. At this point I'm not officially endorsing the 9-9-9 Plan, rather one of my regular readers who I actually know personally asked me to explain the plan further.

    You are correct that there need to be Constitutional safeguards for this program to work. That said, it's true with any new tax plan, like the Fair Tax, isn't it?

    My perfect solution is the Flat Tax, because that operates within the current system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In the current system I would agree, Flat Tax.

    I could accept 999 if it were implemented with an amendment that capped rates and blocked progressivity. And required a balanced budget.

    My preference would be to repeal the 16th and let them starve.
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. on an aside how would you view an Article V Convention?
    Pro? Con?
    Have strong feelings?

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the current system I would agree, Flat Tax.

    "I could accept 999 if it were implemented with an amendment that capped rates and blocked progressivity. And required a balanced budget.

    My preference would be to repeal the 16th and let them starve.
    :)"

    I like the way you think! I mean this country somehow survived on Tarrif Revenue for a century and a half...now the government can't possibly live on $2 Trillion in revenue? It's preposterous!

    "on an aside how would you view an Article V Convention?
    Pro? Con?
    Have strong feelings?"

    Article V Convention? To be honest I've never heard the term (although I suspect I'm familiar with the concept). Explain?

    ReplyDelete
  6. An Article V Convention called by the states under Article V of the Constitution.
    foavc.org I think has some stuff on it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As expected, familiar with the concept, just never heard it referred to as an "Article V Convention," but rather as a "Constitutional Amendment Convention."

    I am very much in favor of a Balanced Budget amendment to the Constitution. Like you, I think an amendment might be necessary to put in place a Fair Tax or a 9-9-9 plan, and in that case I would think that repealing the 16th Amendment would couple well in that amendment.

    I'm not so keen on the idea of a marriage amendment just because I do consider a difference between the legal contract and the Biblical covenant anyway, and my stance of "call it something else and feel free to grant legal priveleges" stands.

    The thing I'd expect with either of those amendments is I just KNOW some idiot liberal judge will try to overturn a Constitutional amendment as unconstitutional. It won't last, but can't you just see that happening?

    ReplyDelete

All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.

Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.