8

10/25/2011 6:05:52 PM

Cain is just a gimmicky schmuck that pulled numbers directly out of his ass until he came up with three that sounded good. When the people who know what the fuck they're talking about told him his idea was stupid and regressive he simply reached into his ass and pulled out three more numbers. Its a good thing its another palindrome. This guy is an ass and the only reason he would get a republican nomination is because they think he can rend some of the African American caucus away from Obama.

10/25/2011 6:07:50 PM

Wait, is he saying he will only take 9% out of my commissions check, instead of the current 40%? That would be cool.

10/25/2011 6:29:16 PM

But he would also increase sales tax to 9% on everything, including groceries. Less out of your check, more out of every dollar you spend on anything.

It's pretty much designed to hold down the working man while sounding good to said working man's ear.

10/25/2011 6:58:39 PM

...avoid buying as much garbage...$profit

I'd be interested to see what the what, 3% increase in spending expenses would be compared to saving 20% of all of my income

I mean as long as you're spending within your means it should balance out right. I don't feel like doing numbers, but 20% on all money sounds > than 3% on all purchases, since $purchases is automatically < $income...for nonretards at least

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 7:10 PM. Reason : lkj]

10/25/2011 7:08:47 PM

it would be an added 9% to sales tax right? the current 7.5 (or whatever it is) is for the state and local govts right?

10/25/2011 7:39:03 PM

is it 7.5% + 9% or just 7.5 -> 9?

I haven't paid much attention to the guy as of late, but I do like how he talks shit to the OWS hippies

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 7:47 PM. Reason : lkj]

10/25/2011 7:47:10 PM

It'd be 16.5% on most purchases, 11% on groceries.

I understand the idea of wanting to control your own money, but this plan penalizes you for engaging in the economy.

10/25/2011 7:47:55 PM

7.5% + 9% is my understanding

10/25/2011 7:48:00 PM

Do you spend all your money on groceries?

Regardless, sounds like we need this broken down a bit. I'm seeing two different tax plans going on here

10/25/2011 7:49:37 PM

^^^Nah, used goods are exempt. Buy your groceries used.

10/25/2011 7:50:59 PM

I don't spend all of my money on groceries, but I'd rather pay the government for services they provide me up front than get gouged every time I'd like to make dinner for my family.

Just pointing out that under the Cain plan there'd be a 550% tax increase on food.

10/25/2011 7:51:14 PM

Person makes $25/hour

Person works 80 hours for 2 weeks and gets a $2000 pay check.

Paycheck is taxed at 30% (give or take normally), so government takes out $600. He buys $400 of groceries which is taxed at 2% (guessing based on vinylbandit's post), so that expense goes to $408. Total money after the paycheck is $992.

Person works another 80 hours after the hypothetical 9-9-9 plan goes into effect. His paycheck is taxed at 9% so the government takes out $180. He buys $400 of groceries which is taxed at 9% (based on vinylbandit's post, not sure if that is the correct amount. Should it be higher?). Total there is $436, leaving the employee with $1384.

If the groceries are taxed at 16% (9%+7%) they cost $464, leaving $1356 instead after shopping.

Is that correct? I'm honestly trying to see how the plan works.

If current taxes are actually ~15%, still left with $1292 vs $1356.

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 8:04 PM. Reason : lkj]

10/25/2011 7:59:45 PM

If you feel like you can trust politifact, this pretty much exactly addresses your question for someone earning $50,000: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/13/herman-cain/herman-cain-says-someone-earning-50000-will-save-u/

10/25/2011 8:04:11 PM

also check out the tax policy center.


read here:
http://taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3221

10/25/2011 8:43:05 PM

Looks like a good way to raise tax revenue to reduce the deficit.

10/25/2011 8:50:28 PM

I'm pretty sure Cain has said repeatedly its revenue neutral

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 9:00 PM. Reason : then again saying anything about raising revenues won't get you the Republican nomination]

10/25/2011 8:59:10 PM

I can't see how that graph can be right with the poverty exemption in his plan.

10/25/2011 9:21:20 PM

Herman Cain is a fucking idiot.

10/25/2011 9:38:28 PM

how this thread isn't 8 pages of "do people really take this clown seriously?" boggles my mind

10/25/2011 10:26:09 PM

A poverty exemption wouldn't fix the other problems with that plan.

I wonder if they factor in social security or Medicare/cade.

10/25/2011 10:59:24 PM

I don't see how any of the GOP candidates can beat President Obama.

10/26/2011 12:20:12 AM

The election would be so absurdly easy for Obama if Herman Cain got the nomination.

For real, he wouldn't even have to try.

10/26/2011 12:20:26 AM

Quote :

"Paycheck is taxed at 30% (give or take normally), so government takes out $600."

This is wrong. 30% is the marginal tax rate, or the tax rate on the highest dollar. The average tax rate is much lower. After all the deductions (home loan + student loans + dependent care + blah) a 3 person family making 100k may only pay around 13% or so.

10/26/2011 12:32:45 AM

skip to :40

10/26/2011 12:58:46 AM

congrats, youre the fourth person to post that in this thread!

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM. Reason : .]

10/26/2011 1:06:11 AM

Quote :

"congrats, youre the fourth person to post that in this thread!"

HAH! like I'd really read a Herman Cain thread.

10/26/2011 1:08:03 AM

you can post that shit a million times, it'll always be relevant and hilarious

the new theory is that they put it in there to show that cain's people are down with smokers, since RJR has thrown an ungodly amount of money at him

10/26/2011 4:01:28 AM

It's hard to predict what some form of 9-9-9 tax plan would actually do in the real world. If this recession has taught us anything, it's that our economic models are not very good in this current situation. And I'm saying that as someone who works in finance and has a minor in economics.

10/26/2011 4:15:18 AM

I think people are overanalyzing 9-9-9 (or 9-0-9, or whatever it's called these days) as he's said it's just a stepping stone to a Fair Tax--which seems, to me at least, to be more than fair to the poor and the rich, and a royal screwing over for the middle class. I know it's labeled "fair" because it's purely consumption-based. And if you choose to consume more, you should have to pay more, right? Well, sort of. I'm down with having to pay more for things like vacations, electronics, new cars, etc. And it obviously encourages saving, investing, and paying down debt, because those things are not taxed. So that's cool.
But I still think that, if you look at the way it breaks down, the "prebate" (which is going to take a huge amount of bureaucracy to disburse, so there goes some of your savings from gutting the IRS) is calculated at a level to neutralize the expected Fair Tax burden on a family at the poverty line. That's great. If you're already at that level of income the government should stay out of your pocket. And if you're rich, or even better very rich, unless you're living large and spending spending spending, you'll have much lower effective taxes because a much larger portion of your income is unused, or used for purposes other than consumer goods & services spending, than at a lower income level. So a much smaller chunk of your income is subject to the tax, at a rate lower than you were already paying.
So the rich pay less taxes. The poor pay less taxes. The plan is allegedly revenue-neutral. Where's the money coming from? Oh, right, the middle class. Who generally save or invest a relatively small portion of their income, being on the hook for the rest of it to support the modern American life. Whether or not this is an appropriate lifestyle is another story if we're just looking at tax liability at this point. Even taking the prebate into account, you're getting hit at a much higher effective level than before (deductions no longer exist, plus you're getting into a high-ish tax bracket if your marginal rate is > 30%, which seems to be a popular hypothetical Fair Tax number). Even on a smaller slice of income, you don't break even. This is going to come down most heavily on large families, since they stand to lose the most from deductions.
Fair? Not really. The middle class are the largest portion of this country, and if we are going to leave this recession anytime soon and return to a vibrant economy, taking away more of their money is not the way to do it. Not in my opinon.

Not that my opinion matters, according to some folks here who think that if you're not an expert you're not qualified to have one.

10/26/2011 3:15:53 PM

This nigga done wrote a Bill.

10/26/2011 3:16:19 PM

no way im reading all that block of text

Quote :

"BLOCK OF TEXT"

10/26/2011 3:24:04 PM

Quote :

"This is wrong. 30% is the marginal tax rate, or the tax rate on the highest dollar. The average tax rate is much lower. After all the deductions (home loan + student loans + dependent care + blah) a 3 person family making 100k may only pay around 13% or so."

Correct on the tax rate, I was mistaken. I checked my paystub and I'm taxed at about 15%...from the federal government. Same as that graph above. THEN I'm taxed, Social Security, blah blah and the US government as a whole takes 30% of my paycheck. I have no deductions for home loan + student loan + dependent + blah. [note that I didn't use my pay rate, I'm using a generic hourly amount]

According to my brief calculations, I have more money (~$100) left over from the 9-9-9 from my pay check (assuming the only change is that federal goes from 15% to 9%) even after buying $400 of goods taxed at 16% (9 federal sales tax, 7 state sales tax).

No idea what the fuck that graph above is doing.

Now, sure, if I start going out and buying frivolous and ridiculous shit, then I'm going to pay more in taxes overall. Generally, that's going to hit the rich people who have loads of cash to blow and who don't give a fuck about how much something costs. Now for myself, trying to save up and buy a home and invest for my future, the 9-9-9 appears to be more beneficial in that it lets me control more of my money.

I can definitely see why financially irresponsible people (ie AMURICA) could be frightened by this plan.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM. Reason : lkj]

As far as which plan helps the government collect more in taxes from the rich in general, I have no numbers to go off on comparing income tax loss vs sales tax gains. I do assume, however, that rich people have thousands (literally thousands!!!!11!!!1) of loopholes to pay very little income tax, then pay a low sales tax and thus come out ahead.

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 3:48 PM. Reason : adsf]

10/26/2011 3:43:05 PM

Wow, that ended up way longer than I thought it would be, and formatted badly. Too late to edit. Oh well.

On another note, has anyone noticed that Cain's slow smile at the end of that odd video looks a lot like the end of the intro to the Japanese Iron Chef, where Chairman Kaga takes a bite of the yellow pepper and then slowly smiles?

10/26/2011 4:20:09 PM

colbert wants to challenge him to a slow smile off lol

10/26/2011 4:55:26 PM

^lol, I love colbert

10/26/2011 4:56:23 PM

i'm still on the fence with this guy...

[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 4:57 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2011 4:57:30 PM

^^^haha, that'd be awesome

10/26/2011 5:12:16 PM

worth reposting



[Edited on October 26, 2011 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ...]

10/26/2011 5:53:39 PM

So neat to find out that the accountant, Jonathan Kraftchick, in this article is my friend.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/13/herman-cain/herman-cain-says-someone-earning-50000-will-save-u/

10/27/2011 9:01:36 AM

the government takes out over 30% of my pay before I see it.

then they tax me whenever i want to use my already taxed money.

that is a fucking problem.

10/27/2011 9:05:11 AM

Quote :

"Nah, used goods are exempt. Buy your groceries used."

lol

10/27/2011 9:08:48 AM

nein-nein-nein!

10/27/2011 9:18:53 AM

^DMZ on O'reilly?

10/27/2011 9:19:23 AM

Tim Heidecker's Herman Cain ad (spoiler alert: it fucking rules)

http://youtu.be/JF9dr-FItR8

10/27/2011 3:12:12 PM

Quote :

"worth reposting"

Not really. Is it surprising that graphing the absolute change in taxes paid will be much more pronounced (in either direction) for those that pay the most taxes? Try graphing tax change as a percentage for an image less designed to elicit a particular emotional response.

10/27/2011 7:45:58 PM

The Cain bubble has popped.

10/28/2011 12:34:36 AM

so...do you think he molestered those chicks or what?

10/31/2011 11:19:46 PM

No, he settled for fun

10/31/2011 11:49:02 PM

"Cain 'trying to think back' on harassment claims"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_162-503544.html?contributor=10470607

just when it seemed that maybe he really wasn't a normal politician...

11/1/2011 12:54:23 AM