Herman Cain is a poopy shithole.

[Santa]

Point #1:

The 999 plan includes an elimination of the Death tax and Capital Gains taxes. Effectively removing the limited controls our economy has to maintain a middle class. He's looking at an economy where the rich are getting even richer and now wants to ensure even more money stays in their hands. Fucking asshole.

Point #2:

According to his "On the Issues" http://www.hermancain.com/the-issues
, he states the following in order:

our leaders added “In God We Trust” to all of our currency.
- Yay, a candidate finally noticed it wasn't there since Jesus walked around a 2,000 year old earth.

in the 1950s, Congress added the words “under God” to our pledge of allegiance. They were not just words.
- Woo, 2 for 2!

America’s moral foundation does not need to be rewritten.
- 3 for 3! He's posturing to remove these religious phrases from government, right?

....

We are free because “In God Is Our Trust.”

Fuck you, Herman Cain.

[Uncle Sherm]

Herman Cain looks at Jesus the way you look at government controls of the economy. We didn't need them 200 years ago to maintain our middle class, and we don't need them now.

[Santa]

Yeah, all they needed was an organized slavery system to help them generate wealth.

With his plan, all rich people need is wealth to generate wealth to financially enslave others across multiple generations.

I'm all cool with a person getting rich. I'm not cool with them passing that on indefinitely.

[Uncle Sherm]

Then I suggest shopping locally instead of doing business with large corporations and long established family owned companies.

And most slave owners were not wealthy.

[MarcusAurelius]

what is wealth with restrictions on who or what you can give it to?

[Talenos]

The high tech industry is a perfect parallel to the southern slave trade. Nothing has changed in the last 200 years so everything that worked then should be exactly the same as it is now.

[Uncle Sherm]

What has changed so fundamentally that we need government protection from the rich people taking our money? The only change I see is companies becoming so successful in their marketing that we tend to be much more willing to give it to them of our own free will. 100 years ago, most people weren't blowing gobs of money on useless crap and entertainment like we do today. There's one big difference. The real difference is the federal reserve's new favorite hobby of giving free and fake money away to make it look like the economy is growing.

[floor punching mummy]

The 999 plan includes an elimination of the Death tax and Capital Gains taxes. Effectively removing the limited controls our economy has to maintain a middle class.

are these really the controls the government uses to maintain the middle class? Cap gains tax receipts are ~$100b ( http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc108 ... ter4.shtml , Table 4-3). The estate tax raises maybe $30b historically (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc108 ... rief.shtml , table 2). For a $3T+ budget, I don't see how these two taxes are the bulwark against "destroying the middle class" or whatever you want to call it.

[Santa]

A portion of the controls, at least.

Given:

A. The economic gap is widening at what's already an alarming rate.
B. These changes will negatively impact A.

What kind of a shitty fuckhead would think this is a good idea? That's right. Poopmaster Cain

[floor punching mummy]

how does redistribution help the "middle class", though? most middle class people aren't huge recipients of transfer payments.

[Santa]

how does redistribution help the "middle class", though? most middle class people aren't huge recipients of transfer payments.

Just with the numbers you provided, 130 billion divided among 300 million Americans is 433 dollars/person. That money could be taken directly off of income tax.

433 less in taxes/year for the average American.

Seems like it would benefit the middle class a Hell of a lot more than adding a 433 dollar tax burden per person by eliminating these taxes.

[MarcusAurelius]

how does redistribution help the "middle class", though? most middle class people aren't huge recipients of transfer payments.

Just with the numbers you provided, 130 billion divided among 300 million Americans is 433 dollars/person. That money could be taken directly off of income tax.

433 less in taxes/year for the average American.

Seems like it would benefit the middle class a Hell of a lot more than adding a 433 dollar tax burden per person by eliminating these taxes.

yeah totally

[Reagraham Lincool]

how does redistribution help the "middle class", though? most middle class people aren't huge recipients of transfer payments.

Well for one it makes it so there's demand for jobs other than monocle cleaners and yacht de-barnaclers.

[floor punching mummy]

how does redistribution help the "middle class", though? most middle class people aren't huge recipients of transfer payments.

Just with the numbers you provided, 130 billion divided among 300 million Americans is 433 dollars/person. That money could be taken directly off of income tax.

yeah, it could be. but it won't be.

433 less in taxes/year for the average American.

Seems like it would benefit the middle class a Hell of a lot more than adding a 433 dollar tax burden per person by eliminating these taxes.

it'd help, but is it really enough to make a significant difference? for the middle class, ~$1000/yr is not the line between comfort and abject poverty.

your initial claim that these things are the only thing preventing the elimination of the middle class is bollocks.

[Santa]

That statement was more absolute than I intended it to be.

On the other hand, seem to be having trouble admitting they have any effect on the middle class at all.

If A sucks
and B makes it worse.

Pretty sure B is a stupid shitty poophole Cainism.

[Prison Mike]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/1 ... 08952.html

[Reagraham Lincool]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13/herman-cain-999-sim-city_n_1008952.html

The corporate income tax rate would be 9 percent, the personal income tax rate would be 9 percent and the national sales tax rate would be 9 percent.

Plans are really easy when you can just pull non-revenue neutral bullshit out of your ass. This man is the GOP frontrunner.

[Jobu]

Not even. Once the economists finish ripping his plan to pieces, Cain will have as good a chance as the "rent is too damn high" party.

[Santa]

This is the amazing story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/1 ... 06201.html

[Dr. Faustus]

"9-9-9" sounds like a half baked advertising jingle he wanted to dream up to promote Godfather's Pizza. He's taking the same sort of marketing appeal he cooked up in the corporate boardroom and trying to make it work for selling the GOP. It's strangely appropriate for our current era that a front runner in the GOP primary intends to run the US like a third rate pizza franchise. Quite frankly, at this point I don't think his supporters deserve any better.

The worst of it is that there's a certain kind of psychological pull to the way he packages his ideas. It's hard to forget the three nines thing. What helps you to succeed publicly doesn't have all that much to do with reason. Phrasing his ideas in the language of TV advertisements may just be enough to get him ahead, provided people don't think their voting habits through any further than they think about where to go out for dinner on a Tuesday night.

[MarcusAurelius]

um.... when cain become a front runner? honestly i'm confused. i saw debates weeks ago and was treated as a third class citizen.

[Santa]

um.... when cain become a front runner? honestly i'm confused. i saw debates weeks ago and was treated as a third class citizen.

It really seems like they're just putting up consecutive bad candidates against Romney to ensure he wins the nomination.

[DTower5]

um.... when cain become a front runner? honestly i'm confused. i saw debates weeks ago and was treated as a third class citizen.

http://news.yahoo.com/cain-leads-republ ... 58398.html

It's been in the news cycle for at least a couple days now

[WrenchHead]

Cain will never make nomination (and he shouldn't) and Romney will be 'the dude.' I'm happy Cain exists to divert attention away from that shithead Rick Perry.

But, the hilarity of the huge amount of racist right wing asshole voters in the USA having to choose between a black dude they hate and a blacker dude is something I'm hoping for.

This guy is doing amazingly well for having no money (relatively speaking) and being completely nonsensical with his proposed policies. Proof that the American public is hungry for even stupider options than the rank and file BS that only sort of kind of works to keep the country from collapsing.

[Gretyl]

Bill Maher made a $1M to $1 bet last night with a guest of his that Cain will not get the Republican nomination. That is, if Cain is nominated, he will pay $1M. Otherwise, he wins a dollar.

[Uncle Sherm]

Cain is one of 2 candidates that I would consider voting for if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination. Gary Johnson is the other.

[Prison Mike]

So who are you going to vote for when Romney gets the nod?

[Uncle Sherm]

Write in for Ron Paul, just like last time.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Bill Maher made a $1M to $1 bet last night with a guest of his that Cain will not get the Republican nomination. That is, if Cain is nominated, he will pay $1M. Otherwise, he wins a dollar.

Bill Maher betting on the sanity of Republicans.

[WrenchHead]

It's a better bet than paying a million dollars into the Obama campaign. If Cain gets the nomination it should be an easy win for Obama.

9/9/9 plan ups taxes for nearly everyone not rich. And rich people hate black people, so they'll vote for the less black person.

[Talenos]

if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination.

lol

[Wargazm]

Hope you like scrolling.

[MarcusAurelius]

oh i love abusing statistics for making clever visualizations!

[Santa]

I think this is the most accurate attempt to quantify a 9/9/9 plan:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/ ... ocTypeID=1

I've yet to see Cain's own statistical analysis on how his plan breaks down by income level because it doesn't exist. I wonder why that is.

[Wargazm]

Heard him on the radio insisting that the poor would be better off. One reason is that since he doesn't want to tax used goods, they would just change their buying habits and not buy new stuff to avoid the tax. This kind of makes sense, but he still had no hard numbers.

The other reason basically boiled down to "because I say so" so I stopped paying attention.

[Santa]

Heard him on the radio insisting that the poor would be better off. One reason is that since he doesn't want to tax used goods, they would just change their buying habits and not buy new stuff to avoid the tax. This kind of makes sense, but he still had no hard numbers.

The other reason basically boiled down to "because I say so" so I stopped paying attention.

That's really bullshit, though. Really, really bullshit. He claims that his tax plan is revenue neutral which means that goods will have the same tax burden placed on them through their life cycle. Poor people already don't pay taxes on most used goods and I can't think of a place where they pay a federal tax.

[Turbo]

Heard him on the radio insisting that the poor would be better off. One reason is that since he doesn't want to tax used goods, they would just change their buying habits and not buy new stuff to avoid the tax. This kind of makes sense, but he still had no hard numbers.

The other reason basically boiled down to "because I say so" so I stopped paying attention.

That's really bullshit, though. Really, really bullshit. He claims that his tax plan is revenue neutral which means that goods will have the same tax burden placed on them through their life cycle. Poor people already don't pay taxes on most used goods and I can't think of a place where they pay a federal tax.

gasoline

[Wargazm]

That's really bullshit, though. Really, really bullshit.

yeah, I agree. That's just the only actual explanation I've ever heard him utter as to why his plan won't fuck poor people over that isn't essentially "because it won't."

[Wargazm]

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/ ... yone-else/

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan would result in a massive tax cut for nearly all of the highest earning Americans and a steep average tax hike for everyone else, according to a new Tax Policy Center analysis.

As Cain knows, when you are in the fast-food pizza business marketing is everything. Your white cheese, pureed tomatoes and slightly-sweet dough are not much different than the other guy’s. So it’s all in the promotion. That’s what’s so clever about his 9-9-9 tax. It sounds great: small numbers, nice symmetry. What’s not to like?

Except this pie is not at all what it appears to be. A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. By contrast, a taxpayer in the top 0.1% (who makes more than $2.7 million) would enjoy an average tax cut of nearly$1.4 million, increasing his after-tax income by nearly 27 percent. His average effective tax rate would be cut almost in half to 17.9 percent. In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000. This would give Warren Buffet severe heartburn.

When you get right down to it, Cain’s plan is a 25 percent flat-rate consumption tax—not all that different from the FAIR tax that he says is his ultimate goal. This tax would be paid three times: first on wage income, again at the cash register as a sales tax, and yet again by businesses on their sales minus their cost of goods and services. For tax junkies, the first is a flat tax. The second is a retail sales tax and the third a business transfer tax. But they are all consumption taxes.

Cain’s triple tax would replace payroll and estate taxes as well as the corporate and individual income taxes as we know them. All deductions, exemptions, and credits (except for charitable gifts) would be eliminated from the individual tax. Because businesses could deduct all their capital purchases, capital income would be tax free. But wages would be taxed—again and again and again. First, directly through the individual flat tax and then, because firms can’t deduct wages as an expense, twice more through the business tax and the sales tax.

Say you want to buy a pizza. First, under the business tax the pizza guy pays a tax on the difference between the retail price and his cost of producing the pie. Every firm along the supply chain would do the same: The farmer would pay 9 percent on his sales of raw tomatoes minus his costs, the sauce manufacturer would pay another 9 percent. This is just like a retail sales tax, except it is collected at every step of production along the way. But it is still passed on to consumers. Next you pay a separate 9 percent retail sales at the register. Finally, you have to pay the 9 percent individual flat tax.

There is more. Because employers would be taxed on wages they pay, economists figure the levy would result in lower salaries. Not only would the combination of lower incomes and higher taxes reduce the current standard of living for many middle-class households, those lower wages would also result in lower Social Security benefits down the road.

Cain apparently has an idea for a credit to protect low- and middle-class households from some of the burden of this triple tax, but he has not yet said what it is. And the problem, of course, is the more generous the credit, the less revenue the tax will generate. Because his plan is roughly revenue neutral now, that would force him to either increase the deficit or abandon that nice sounding 9-9-9 and raise his proposed tax rates.

Now, there is nothing wrong with a well-designed consumption tax. There are even benefits to adding a Value-Added Tax to a personal income tax while using it to buy down corporate income and payroll taxes. But a well-designed consumption tax retains a progressive rate structure somewhere in the system. Cain’s does not. Instead he opts for what is effectively a 25 percent flat rate sales tax. And that’s why he raises taxes on typical middle-income households by more than $4,000 while cutting them on those with the highest incomes by an average of $1.4 million.

So, to sum up:
* Those who make less will pay more taxes
* Those who make more will pay less taxes
* Taxes levied against businesses will be passed onto consumers, raising prices
* Taxes levied against businesses could result in lower wages.

Higher Taxes + Higher Prices + Lower Wages = Proper fucked.

[Santa]

Heard him on the radio insisting that the poor would be better off. One reason is that since he doesn't want to tax used goods, they would just change their buying habits and not buy new stuff to avoid the tax. This kind of makes sense, but he still had no hard numbers.

The other reason basically boiled down to "because I say so" so I stopped paying attention.

That's really bullshit, though. Really, really bullshit. He claims that his tax plan is revenue neutral which means that goods will have the same tax burden placed on them through their life cycle. Poor people already don't pay taxes on most used goods and I can't think of a place where they pay a federal tax.

gasoline

It would be very interesting to see how this plan would affect the price of gasoline given the reduction in corporate taxes and federal taxes minus the lack of subsidies. The federal gas tax is 18c/gallon which would be less than 9 percent.

It will also add a 9 percent tax on food.

[Thinine]

Pssh, just buy used gas. PROBLEM SOLVED.

[Reagraham Lincool]

Heard him on the radio insisting that the poor would be better off. One reason is that since he doesn't want to tax used goods, they would just change their buying habits and not buy new stuff to avoid the tax. This kind of makes sense, but he still had no hard numbers.

It kind of makes sense until you consider that the poor are going to have to make up for lost government services or suffer the MASSIVE impact on quality of life by just having to do without them.

/cue the idiot brigade to come in and claim that the poor aren't benefiting or could do better in the market with their non-existent purchasing power or whatever other completely fucking stupid shit they're going to say.

[Wargazm]

It kind of makes sense until you consider that the poor are going to have to make up for lost government services or suffer the MASSIVE impact on quality of life by just having to do without them.

well, supposedly this proposal would bring in nearly the same tax revenue as is being brought in now, so in theory at least they wouldn't have to cut any spending on services.

Which makes the plan even more odious, I think. It's not about collecting less taxes, reducing wasteful spending, reducing the country's debt, or anything like that. It's simply a plan to make it so rich people to pay less. That is it.

[MarcusAurelius]

It's simply a plan to make it so rich people to pay less. That is it.

right, it's also a much simpler tax code, which is generically good, not that i agree with this particular approach.

but describing it like that means i can describe any democrat's plans as "a plan to make it so rich people pay more." i fail to see why making those that pay nothing or practically nothing in income taxes at least contribute a little is such an offensive idea.

[Jobu]

I wonder how much thought was put into using the particular number 9 or if it simply sounded good. I like the basic premise, but it's obvious that doesn't solve anything other than simplify the tax code. I wonder if a different combination of numbers would provide a better solution. Unfortunately, any flat tax is going to result in a net decrease in income tax for wealthy people. But it may be possible to offset that with a high enough sales tax or *gumble* even a VAT.

[WrenchHead]

I think someone said we need a 27% tax to start breaking even and/or paying shit off and some kid at a bank took 27/3 = 9 for the three main branches of taxation. Then he got word to Herman Cain who drank the koolaid.

re: making low wage earners pay taxes - it's a shell game.. Pay them a higher minimum wage so they can afford to pay taxes. That puts burden on middle to upper class owners of businesses. In effect, rich people pay more taxes. However most richtax people won't be happy until we start getting reports of people actually starving to death in the streets.

[MarcusAurelius]

it's cute how you're utterly incapable of speaking in anything but hyperbole. like a child. a stupid, stupid child.

[Gretyl]

i fail to see why making those that pay nothing or practically nothing in income taxes at least contribute a little is such an offensive idea.

nothing in income taxes is not the same as no tax whatsoever

the reason they currently pay nothing is wealth redistribution. it's on a small scale (when compared to the high-end tax brackets of the pre-1960's), but a scale generally agreed upon for promoting those with little to no wealth to get any job.

[MarcusAurelius]

i fail to see why making those that pay nothing or practically nothing in income taxes at least contribute a little is such an offensive idea.

nothing in income taxes is not the same as no tax whatsoever

the reason they currently pay nothing is wealth redistribution. it's on a small scale (when compared to the high-end tax brackets of the pre-1960's), but a scale generally agreed upon for promoting those with little to no wealth to get any job.

i'm not talking about taxing people that are unemployed. that's... dumb.

[Santa]

Which came first? Sim City or the pizza deal?

[WrenchHead]

it's cute how you're utterly incapable of speaking in anything but hyperbole. like a child. a stupid, stupid child.

prove I'm wrong.

I'm not, and this is the sort of stuff stupid people say to make themselves sound smarter when they're wrong.

[Gretyl]

i fail to see why making those that pay nothing or practically nothing in income taxes at least contribute a little is such an offensive idea.

nothing in income taxes is not the same as no tax whatsoever

the reason they currently pay nothing is wealth redistribution. it's on a small scale (when compared to the high-end tax brackets of the pre-1960's), but a scale generally agreed upon for promoting those with little to no wealth to get any job.

i'm not talking about taxing people that are unemployed. that's... dumb.

I'm not implying or assuming you hold that position.

[Talenos]

Unemployment benefits are taxed currently.

[MarcusAurelius]

Unemployment benefits are taxed currently.

okay well that's stupid.

[MarcusAurelius]

it's cute how you're utterly incapable of speaking in anything but hyperbole. like a child. a stupid, stupid child.

prove I'm wrong.

most richtax people won't be happy until we start getting reports of people actually starving to death in the streets.

[WrenchHead]

It's true. You've said several times on here before you hope poor people starve, especially if they're black. If you want to go back on your own words and claim you're not a racist elitist, that's fine. I actually hope you will at some point.

[Reagraham Lincool]

It kind of makes sense until you consider that the poor are going to have to make up for lost government services or suffer the MASSIVE impact on quality of life by just having to do without them.

well, supposedly this proposal would bring in nearly the same tax revenue as is being brought in now, so in theory at least they wouldn't have to cut any spending on services.

Right, but everyone knows that's bullshit. The point of tax cuts is to make it impossible for the government to help people so that the government is compelled to stop, regardless of how unpopular that action is. It's called starving the beast and Republicans have been doing it for decades now and we're all living in the fallout.

Which makes the plan even more odious, I think. It's not about collecting less taxes, reducing wasteful spending, reducing the country's debt, or anything like that. It's simply a plan to make it so rich people to pay less. That is it.

You're telling me!

[Reagraham Lincool]

I wonder how much thought was put into using the particular number 9 or if it simply sounded good. I like the basic premise, but it's obvious that doesn't solve anything other than simplify the tax code. I wonder if a different combination of numbers would provide a better solution. Unfortunately, any flat tax is going to result in a net decrease in income tax for wealthy people. But it may be possible to offset that with a high enough sales tax or *gumble* even a VAT.

How are two regressive taxes going to offset a regressive shift in the tax burden?

[Talenos]

I heard him say if 10 was good enough for god then 9 was as much as the government should need.

[DTower5]

I heard him say if 10 was good enough for god then 9 was as much as the government should need.

Now thats some fiscal policy everyone can get behind!

[MarcusAurelius]

I heard him say if 10 was good enough for god then 9 was as much as the government should need.

that's actually kinda funny

[Talenos]

http://matzav.com/cain-if-10-percent-is ... government

[Wargazm]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... 0-9/43982/

Summary: Now cain is talking about a separate 9-0-9 plan for poor people, so poor people won't pay income tax in response to criticism about the 9-9-9 plan.

I don't think this guy knows what he's doing.

[WrenchHead]

A sign of a good republican is one that learns and changes his mind when he finds new information to prove him wrong. The Republican party needs some of that.

[Wargazm]

But his plan was only fiscally sound because it broadened the tax base, making it deficit neutral. Now he's still lowering taxes, but he's no longer broadening the base. So it won't be deficit neutral, meaning we'll pile on debt even faster since the country won't be making as much money.

Which will lead to a battle cry of spending cuts. And where will they cut spending? Smart money is on social programs that benefit the poor.