people you are.
Our current economic crisis calls for bold action to truly stimulate
the economy and Renew America back to its greatness. The 9-9-9 Plan
gets Washington D.C. out of the business of picking winners and
losers, using the tax code to dole out favors, and dividing the
country with class warfare. It is fair, simple, transparent and
efficient. It taxes everything once and nothing twice. It taxes the
broadest possible base at the lowest possible rates. It is neutral
with respect to savings and consumption,capital and labor, imports and
exports and whether companies pay dividends or retain earnings.
9% Business Flat Tax
Gross income less all purchases from other U.S. located businesses,
all capital investment, and net exports.
Empowerment Zones will offer deductions for the payroll of those
employed in the zone
9% Individual Flat Tax.
Gross income less charitable deductions.
Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living
and/or working in the zone.
9% National Sales Tax.
Unlike a state sales tax, which is an add-on tax that increases the
price of goods and services, this is a replacement tax. It replaces
taxes that are already embedded in selling prices. By replacing higher
marginal rates in the production process with lower marginal rates,
marginal production costs actually decline, which will lead to prices
being the same or lower, not higher.
According to former Reagan Treasury official Gary Robbins, of Fiscal
Associates, the 9-9-9 Plan will expand GDP by $2 trillion, create 6
million new jobs, increase business investment by one third, and
increase wages by 10%.
9-9-9 Plan: Summary
Removes all payroll taxes and unites all tax payers
Provides the least incentive to evade taxes and the fewest
opportunities to do so
Lifts a $430 billion dead-weight burden on the economy due to
compliance, enforcement, collection, etc…
Is fair, simple, efficient, neutral, and transparent
Ends nearly all deductions and special interest favors
Features zero tax on capital gains and repatriated profits
Exports leave our shores without the Business Tax or the Sales Tax
embedded in their cost, making them world class competitive. Imports
are subject to the same taxation as domestically produced goods,
leveling the playing field.
Lowest marginal rates on production
Kills the Death Tax
Allows immediate expensing of business investments
Eliminates double taxation of dividends
Increases capital formation which aids capital availability for small
Increased capital per worker drives productivity and wage growth
Features a platform to launch properly structured Empowerment Zones to
renew our inner cities
The pro-growth, pro-job, pro-export economic policies of the 9-9-9
PLAN equals a strong dollar policy
Phase 2 – The Fair Tax
Amidst a backdrop of the economic renewal created by the 9-9-9 Plan, I
will begin the process of educating the American people on the
benefits of continuing the next step to the Fair Tax.
Ultimately replaces individual and corporate income taxes
Ends the IRS as we know it and repeals the 16th Amendment
On Oct 21, 7:14 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Evening Michael,
> I am the first to agree that the real to most all economic problems in the
> United States today, the real solution, is for government to quit
> spending. Wenzel and I, as well as the majority of thinking Americans agree
> with this...The only individuals that apparently don't agree with this
> logical assertion are members of the 112th Congress....On both sides of the
> I did read Wenzel's article, and I stand by my initial observation. Other
> members may see it differently, but Wenzel basically has no argument
> whatsoever against Cain's "9-9-9" Plan, or at least any argument that is a
> logical argument that he hasn't created out of pure fiction. The only
> individual spewing fallacy is you, with your cut and paste crackpot articles
> from LewRockwell.com, but I didn't come on here to sling nasty barbs.
> Wenzel specifically refers to Schiff's characterizing Cain's "9-9-9" Plan as
> having a "hidden 9% payroll tax; what you term a "missing" tax, (*e.g*.;
> a payroll tax, which is not mentioned in Cain's "9-9-9" plan. I have a
> deep respect for Peter Schiff, I think he is one of the better economists
> going right now, and unlike you and Lew Rockwell, Mr. Schiff is a true
> Libertarian. What Wenzel has taken out of context, is Schiff's reference
> to Cain's "9-9-9" plan where would eliminate the deductibility of wages and
> salaries from corporate income, and thus, Cain's 9% corporate tax would in
> essence be a 9% payroll tax. This is but one flaw that Schiff points out,
> but Wenzel apparently didn't read Schiff's whole article:
> Although I understand Schiff's premise, I think he could have framed the
> issue a little better, where crackpots like Wenzel with an agenda could
> have a better understanding, (if that is in fact Wenzel's goal, to
> "understand"; but I doubt it) and not mischaracterized Cain's plan and
> Schiff's article. Cain's "9-9-9" plan specifically points out that it
> forecloses any additional payroll tax, and will not create an additional
> payroll tax:
> Where Schiff is correct, is that an elimination of deducting salaries and
> cost of labor will in fact be shifted to the cost of goods and services.
> What I am unsure of, is how Schiff is concluding that the "4th Hidden
> Payroll Tax" is created by the plan, unless Schiff is theorizing that like
> every other tax, the consumer will in fact foot the bill for such a cost.
> That is the way that it is now, with each and every tax that is mandated and
> force upon corporations, they are passed along to the consumer.
> Again, what is it that you found worthy of posting in Wenzel's article?
> Have you even read Cain's "9-9-9" plan? I have read a number of articles
> from purported "economists" who have not read the plan, and have still felt
> the need to criticize the plan, for obvious reasons.....The plan would take
> away from a socialist-elitist agenda that the Democrats seem intent on
> maintaining, but that is a post for another evening.
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > In your usual zeal to spew fallacy and hope no one notices, you apparently
> > FAILED to actually read the piece penned/put together by Wenzel. Sadly, this
> > is not that unusual. The answers to your feigned concerns are readily
> > identified within.
> > Wenzel notes the "revenue neutral" preposterousness.
> > Wenzel notes that there is actually ANOTHER "9" that is left out.
> > Wenzel notes that it opens a NEW (not currently used) tax.
> > Wenzel notes the REAL problem ... which is spending.
> > There are four (4) reasons you somehow could not 'find' -- four (4)
> > problems with the 'plan' identified.
> > There is no 'fair share' in this scheme. What is 'fair' about one person
> > paying more or less than another for the monopoly 'service' government?
> > Let me guess, you are in FAVOR of this Buffoon, Cain? You think government
> > should ALSO tax consumption?
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment
> > for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance
> > or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the
> > State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in
> > its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less
> > presumptuous, than the income tax." -- Murray Rothbard
> > At 07:31 PM 10/21/2011, you wrote:
> > Has anyone actually read this article by Robert Wenzel?
> > Can anyone find anywhere in this article, a reason, any reason whatsoever,
> > that Wenzel believes that Cain's "9-9-9" plan is misplaced, other than his
> > repeated statement that a consumption tax falls on labor?
> > As if the federal and state income taxes don't?
> > The reality is, Wenzel cannot find anything wrong with Cain's plan, other
> > than he objects to EVERYONE paying their fair share, which is a typical
> > "socialist/Democratic Party" Class warfare ploy to keep the socialists and
> > Democratic Party Members entrenched within government.
> > As has been repeatedly pointed out here in PF as well as other blogs and
> > media sources, there is approximately fifty percent of Americans in this
> > Nation who pay no federal income taxes. The tax burden, and I probably
> > should say a disporportionate percentage of the tax burden, has been placed
> > on the "producers" of this Nation, which is unfair.
> > Neither Wenzel's nor Wenzel's purported expert Murray Rothbard can come up
> > with any logical reason, nor can either demonstrate by fact or empirical
> > data, why a consumption tax will not work in this Nation!
> > A consumption tax is just that, it taxes consumption, and I cannot think of
> > anything that would be more fair, with the exception of a Constitutional
> > Amendment which would end a federal income tax, followed by a flat tax on
> > EVERYONE no exceptions, no loopholes, no write-offs, period.
> > Once again, more tripe from LewRockwell.com.....
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:41 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Thursday, October 20, 2011
> > Why Peter Schiff and Arthur Laffer Are Wrong about Herman Cain's 9-9-9
> > Tax Plan
> > Posted by Robert Wenzel at 10:41 AM
> > Arthur Laffer and Peter Schiff have both come out in favor of Herman Cain's
> > 9-9-9 tax proposal. Laffer's endorsement<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020434610457663731031536...>is full strength: This
> > is the type of tax increase I wholeheartedly support.
> > Schiff's endorsement is qualified, and I have taken some heat<http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/10/peter-schiff-endorses-he...>for calling it an endorsement, but aside from Schiff's qualification as to
> > what he calls a hidden additional 9% tax, it sure sounds like an endorsement
> > to me.
> > In his analysis of the Cain proposal, Schiff writes<http://www.europac.net/commentaries/herman_cains_hidden_nine>:
> > 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.
> > and Schiff concludes by emphasising the hidden ninth tax and writes (My
> > emphasis): 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.
> > But, the problem is as much with the other three nines that Schiff calls
> > "a winning hand after all."
> > What do Schiff and Laffer like so much about Cain's plan. Here's Laffer: I
> > support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to
> > actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to
> > avoid taxes at higher tax rates. Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a
> > heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates.
> > Here's Schiff: Such a [9-9-9] system would unburden businesses, provide a
> > tax cut for most Americans, and shift taxation to consumption and away from
> > income generation
> > Now, what needs to be kept in mind is that Cain's plan is designed to be
> > revenue neutral. Schiff would like to see elimination of the fourth hidden
> > 9% tax, but overall we are just talking about shifting the structure of
> > taxation, rather than reducing taxation. Murray Rothbard explained<http://mises.org/daily/1768>what this means: ...in
> > the immortal words of that exemplary economic czar and servant of
> > absolutism, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the task of the taxing authorities is to
> > "so pluck the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the
> > least amount of hissing." We the taxpayers, of course, are the geese.
> > Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is about cutting down hissing. In other words, it's
> > a scam. He's a con-man playing a shell game.
> > Now, let's take a detailed look at this Cain con game and what Schiff likes
> > about the plan and what he doesn't.
> > Schiff writes: 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 forth nine changes everything.
> > Schiff is correct here. The 9% tax resulting from the elimination of the
> > wage deductions will result in this tax cost being passed on to workers. It
> > will mean reduced wages by 9% and is a fourth cost.
> > Now, let's
> read more »
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.