9-9-9.

9% for the rich. 18% for the middle class. 27% for the poor.

Sounds a little less appealing now doesn't it.


He forgot to mention the 9% tax on wages. I don't think the working class should be the one responsible for paying for the bailouts.

10/25/2011 1:53:34 AM

i do

10/25/2011 2:11:59 AM

Donald Trump. Sarah Palin. Herman Cain. The GOP is just a glorified reality TV show. Homeboy is just tryin' to get his.

10/25/2011 2:20:34 AM

Racist thread. How dare you not like Herman Cain for being a black republican.

10/25/2011 3:32:49 AM

I fail to see how anyone would be hit by all three taxes simultaneously; IIRC the "income tax" portion would only cover personal income, the "corporate tax" portion would only cover corporate income, and never the twain shall meet.

IMO it's more like an effective 18% tax on the poor, with the effective rate decreasing toward 9% the less you need to actually spend that money to survive; of course, this is assuming that Cain's "sales tax" proposal is, like the FairTax (but unlike most actual state or local sales taxes), an inclusive rate, meaning that 9% of the money spent on an item would go to the Feds (a 9% exclusive rate means that 9% of the list price is paid on top of that list price as sales tax and is approximately equivalent to an 8.25688% inclusive rate).

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 3:39 AM. Reason : inclusive vs. exclusive sales-tax rate

10/25/2011 3:36:19 AM

If anything, the working class should be paying more. Yachts ain't free.

10/25/2011 7:37:37 AM

Thread title is backwards. Should have been "Herman Cain against Americans".

Since that was the point of the post and all.

10/25/2011 7:58:37 AM

haha, face is the kid who makes a C in "self-paced college algebra" at the local community college.

10/25/2011 9:05:15 AM

You need Algebra to understand the 9-9-9-(9) plan? I thought it was supposed to be simple!

10/25/2011 9:18:21 AM

More like "Jealous roody poos against Herman Cain"

10/25/2011 10:49:45 AM

i favor a 100-0-0 plan

10/25/2011 11:01:52 AM

by income, divided into thirds

10/25/2011 11:02:16 AM

Why would anyone be against Herman Cain? The man is hilarious, he's basically a real life version of Stephen Colbert's fake character. His newest campaign ad owns,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM

10/25/2011 1:20:58 PM

Ripping off Gawker here but yeah, that commercial totally feels like a conversation with a drunk guy outside an Olive Garden

10/25/2011 1:43:44 PM

AHA, I really wanna buy this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw

But I don't want my monies going to support the Tea Party.

And I don't actually have any money.

10/25/2011 2:20:59 PM

Lol, a C in algebra?

Dude, I made a 790 on SAT math. 730 GMAT. I think I've got algebra figured out.


Anyway, enough about me.

You guys are leaving out the 9% wage tax. His plan means corporate wages aren't deductible. Newsflash. Corporations won't eat that, workers will.

So you get hit with a 9% wage tax, a 9% income tax, and a 9% sales tax. That's 27%.

And since 50% of americans are barely used to paying any tax, they are going to feel the brunt like none other.

Quote :

"Herman Cain's Hidden Nine By: Peter Schiff Tuesday, October 18, 2011 Herman Cain has been gaining much traction with his 9-9-9 Plan, a bold proposal to replace our dysfunctional tax code with what could be a simpler, less invasive, and more economically stimulative alternative. While I don't agree with the full spectrum of Mr. Cain's policy choices, I applaud his courage on the tax front. Judging by his rising poll numbers, this appreciation is widely shared. However, the plan has deep flaws, the most glaring of which is its creation of a hidden payroll tax which represents a fourth "nine." This serious pitfall has been unmentioned by Mr. Cain and overlooked by those who have analyzed his plan. Cain would replace the current system of income and payroll taxes with a 9% flat-rate personal income tax, a 9% corporate tax, and a 9% national sales tax. Great idea. Such a system would unburden businesses, provide a tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from income generation. This is exactly what our economy needs. But unlike our current corporate tax system, the plan eliminates the deductibility of wages and salaries from corporate income. The net effect is the creation of a brand new 9% tax on wages. When this fourth 9 falls from Cain's sleeve, many of his opponents will likely accuse him of cheating. Much of the plan's virtue lies in its elimination of Social Security and Medicare taxes (payroll taxes) that fall heaviest on lower income workers. This includes the 6.2% Social Security tax and the 1.45% Medicare tax paid directly by the worker. But it also includes the 6.2% and 1.45% portions paid indirectly by workers through their employers. Payroll taxes are, in reality, a cost of employment. From the employer's perspective these costs are part of the wage package. Absent these taxes, employers could raise wages by an equivalent amount without raising labor costs. Inclusive of this portion, payroll taxes currently cost workers 15.3% of their wages. The Cain plan scraps this tax. But the elimination of wage deductibility from corporate taxes replaces it with a 9% payroll tax. Therefore a more accurate name for Cain's proposal could be the 9-9-9-9 plan. The fourth nine changes everything. Cain admits that the 9% sales tax would fall heaviest on the poor, but he claims that the elimination of the payroll tax would more than compensate. But when the hidden 9% payroll tax is factored in, more than 50% of workers who currently pay an average income tax rate of just 3% would see a sizable tax hike, from 18.3% (former payroll tax plus income tax) to 27%: 9% payroll tax, 9% income tax and 9% consumption tax (poorer workers generally spend all income). On the other hand, high income tax payers get a considerable break. Not counting the consumption tax, the 9-9-9 plan reduces the highest marginal tax rate from 37.9% (35% income tax and 2.9% payroll tax - on income over $105,000) to just 18% (9% income tax plus 9% payroll). For the self-employed, who can transform their wages into dividends (that are deductible business expenses under the 9-9-9 plan), the rate would fall to just 9% (all income tax, no payroll or business tax). Of course, in either case, the 9% sales tax will apply to spending, but even if 100% of earnings are spent (which is generally not true of high earners) the top rate would still top out at only 27% for the highest salaried employees and just 18% for the self-employed. In essence, tax cuts for the rich are paid for with tax hikes on the poor and middle class. If these aspects were widely known the plan would become a political dead letter. Even with its flaws, the 9-9-9-9 plan would create an economic windfall by lowering the top corporate rate to 9% from 50% (35% at the corporate level and 15% on dividends taxed at the individual level), and simplifying the tax code to reduce unnecessary compliance costs and the economically inefficient behavior that is created by perverse tax incentives. These changes alone will make America far more globally competitive. Also by taxing individuals based more on what they spend rather than on what they earn, the plan will encourage more savings (which is a key ingredient for economic growth). As a result, the economy will grow faster, generate greater output of goods and services, and create more jobs. The problem for Herman Cain is that unless he slashes government expenditures, his pro-growth tax structure will inevitably shift more of the tax burden to low and moderate-income people. The only way to combine tax reform with tax reductions for most taxpayers is to shrink government to a more manageable scale. The size of the tax increases required to keep Cain's 9-9-9-9 plan revenue neutral demonstrates just how high a percentage of our current taxes are being paid by affluent taxpayers. Couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $125,000 only constitute about 3% of taxpayers but pay almost half of all taxes. Any policy that cuts their taxes will inflict a disproportional hit on government revenue. Contrary to the rhetoric emanating from the American left, the "rich" are currently paying a lot more than "their fair share." It is only a handful of mega-rich, those whose entire incomes are derived from dividends and capital gains, rather than salaries or business profits, who have the ability to pay lower tax rates than some members of the middle class. The left knows this but continues to build their "free loading millionaire" straw man because it makes good politics. In the final analysis, if Cain really wants a 9-9-9 plan that doesn't raise taxes he needs to remove the hidden 9% payroll tax. However, the only way this could be done, without blowing an even bigger hole in the federal deficit, is to combine his plan with significant spending cuts. If he can pull that off, three nines may be a winning hand after all."

[Edited on October 25, 2011 at 11:17 PM. Reason : a]

10/25/2011 11:15:55 PM

10/30/2011 12:55:28 PM

Here's a good ol' Democrat who would have been against Herman Cain.



And this guy, who was almost president (ran against U.S. Grant).

10/30/2011 7:17:49 PM

Quote :

"AHA, I really wanna buy this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw But I don't want my monies going to support the Tea Party. And I don't actually have any money."

omg. I thought I was the only one. "I am America" is literally the tea party anthem. I'm a liberal atheist dude, but I fucking love this song.

10/30/2011 8:13:00 PM

Cain might be doneski. There are allegations that he paid off a couple of broads back in the 90s to keep quiet over sexual harassment or something. His campaign spokesman is on the phone with Geraldo right now on FNC, and basically refuses to deny it. Geraldo has asken him directly about 10 times, and every time, the spokesman has declined to give a real answer, trying instead to weasel out by saying shit like "this is just dirty attack politics".

10/30/2011 10:41:51 PM

I heard of something like this 20 years...

Can't remember where, though.

10/31/2011 7:54:43 AM

Quote :

"The sources — including the recollections of close associates and other documentation — describe episodes that left the women upset and offended. These incidents include conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association’s offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67194.html#ixzz1cNAR4EYn "

So he made a gesture that wasnt sexual? So what are they complaining about?

10/31/2011 11:14:49 AM

I think you are misinterpreting the word 'gesture.' I bet they're referring to him hugging them or putting his hands on their shoulders or something.

10/31/2011 11:24:04 AM

Still, until the provide concrete evidence and a source its just mudslinging at this point. Provide pics, a statement, corroborating evidence, etc. and then I will care

10/31/2011 1:28:01 PM

^^like this?

http://youtu.be/eTQY1Aw9zcs

10/31/2011 1:54:04 PM

anyone see his interview with lawrence o'donnell?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/06/fireworks_msnbcs_lawrence_odonnell_hostile_interview_with_herman_cain.html

10/31/2011 3:28:11 PM

^lmao - That makes TWW trolling look tame

Cain actually did ok

10/31/2011 3:53:55 PM

he probably just gave them his patented "slow smile" and creeped them the fuck out.

10/31/2011 3:55:50 PM

ITT, the OP just haaad to prove how many smrts he has by listing SAT score....

TWWDGAF

11/1/2011 7:42:09 AM

This scandal isn't a problem...because Republicans hate women anyway.

11/1/2011 10:50:37 AM

Quote :

"So you get hit with a 9% wage tax, a 9% income tax, and a 9% sales tax. That's 27%. "

Just to be clear...

Isn't this
1-.91*.91*.91 = 24.6%

Or did I miss something?

11/1/2011 11:32:17 AM

Don't like Cain.

But that O'Donnell interview was so horrible (on O'Donnell's part) it actually made him look good.

11/1/2011 12:09:00 PM

^^You know the average person isn't going to look at it that way.

11/1/2011 1:12:34 PM

I doubt this is going to hurt him much, but he's now sounding inconsistent as fuck:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/01/politics/cain-allegations/index.html

11/1/2011 1:38:59 PM

Republicans like a man who knows how to keep his women in check.

11/1/2011 6:31:32 PM

^^ Yep, at 13:30 he slips up. The line along was "I remember an agreement, not a settlement."

But then fast forward to 13:30.

11/1/2011 6:42:20 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2fKmeFR_ko

11/2/2011 11:50:14 PM

[Edited on November 3, 2011 at 3:48 PM. Reason : nm]

11/3/2011 3:47:58 PM

[Edited on November 3, 2011 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ...]

11/3/2011 7:44:41 PM

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/cain-supporter-mocks-martin-bashir-i-have-made-it-big-time-i-am-msdnc

Quote :

"MSDNC"

Better, even, than PMSNBC or MSLSD!

11/3/2011 10:59:23 PM

If Herman Cain were elected, in which I would vote for over Obama, he would be the first REAL black American president.

11/4/2011 12:19:56 AM

11/4/2011 12:23:28 AM

Quote :

"If Herman Cain were elected, in which I would vote for over Obama, he would be the first REAL black American president."

I'm curious, what does "REAL black American" mean?

(you're obviously not the first to use the phrase)

11/4/2011 1:07:50 AM

until Charlie Murphy runs for president, we'll never have a REAL black president.

11/4/2011 1:34:00 AM

^^ Obama has a white mother and a black father. He's not really "black."

11/4/2011 3:23:03 AM

Obama is the first Mulatto POTUS
Cain would be the first Black POTUS

Way to go GOP ... the real party of open thinkers and progressive politics

11/4/2011 9:34:28 AM

http://gawker.com/5856375/cain-defends-himself-against-inferior-blacks-with-new-ad

11/4/2011 11:35:11 AM

the 1 - .91 - .91 - .91 guy is partially right with the income tax, but he's wrong on the sales tax. That's 1.09. The wage tax I'm not sure about I'd have to think about it a little deeper and I'm not willing to devote time to it haha.

11/4/2011 3:58:25 PM

OK, I just read the actual 9-9-9 plan: http://www.hermancain.com/999plan

It turns out his sales tax idea is tax-inclusive (corresponding to an exclusive rate of just over 9.89%); now because individual and corporate income are two separate types, you have an effective 9% tax on the combined individual and corporate income.

Then the maximum effective national tax rate (assuming that all income is then spent on goods subject to the 9% inclusive sales tax) is 1-0.91*0.91=17.19%; for the poor this corresponds to an effective 17% tax rate but for the rich it may be more like 13%, because they need to spend less of their income on taxable goods just to survive.

This is obviously unfair, and his ultimate plan ("Fair"Tax) even less so, because it would replace all Federal taxes with a regressive sales tax.

11/4/2011 5:39:37 PM

^ it is regressive if ignore the part of the plan that provides every family a "prebate" to cover the cost of necessities (food) based on the number of ppl (with SSNs) in the house hold

If you ignore all of that, then yes, it is regressive.

11/4/2011 7:05:43 PM