Thursday, October 13, 2011

About that "9-9-9" Plan

As usual, Hillyer comes up with the realities.

Well, I briefly interviewed Mr. Robbins today.  [Robbins 'scored' the plan.]

...“If you cut out all the special treatments [in the tax code], you can cut the rate an awful lot. That’s a valuable message.” Cain, he said, merits praise for putting that message front and center in the campaign: “Give Mr. Cain the credit for injecting into the campaign a better way to go.  You tax money once and only once.” That’s a great prescription, he said, for growth.

...Robbins scored it using “absolutely static” analysis, meaning his scoring should be unassailable from even halfway-fair-minded critics. Indeed, he told me that scored dynamically, Cain’s plan would bring in probably 15 percent more revenue than the current tax system does.

Robbins dismisses the "it can be raised" concern by reminding Hillyer that 'it would be sold as '9-9-9' and people will remember that; the backlash on a tax increase would be significant.'

Paul Ryan likes it because Cain has the guts to make a firm proposal; Robbins likes it because it works (although he might do it differently, given the opportunity.)

Why not?  I'll tell you why not:  the CPA and tax-attorney lobbies OWN Congress.


Paul - Berry Laker said...

I agree with you.

The tax guys will never let it see the light of day. Wonder if they will start throwing money and their power around in the future.

Have a GREAT night.

Jim said...

There are a number of analyses out there on 9-9-9. This is the only one I've seen that actually produces more revenue.

And it also shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor, as of course it should. Shouldn't it?

TerryN said...

So Jim, you're saying the poor would have to pay more than the wealthy or, "pay their fair share"?

Personally, I agree with Bachman that any new revenue stream is a bad idea, and our current system is screwed up.

Anonymous said...

Is $9.99 the cost of a Godfather's pizza? Huntsman thinks so.

Tim Morrissey said...

I think the real point of this post is that the tax-preparation industry would never let such a proposal stand, in the unlikely event that Cain is elected.

Dad29 said...

Jim, the static analysis does NOT signal 'more revenue.' The dynamic anal. DOES--but that's not what Robbins did.

Tim: you say 'unlikely,' I say 'the fat lady ain't sung.'

Romney is a lying flipper. Perry may yet recover (although his wife's beginning to bother me.)

One thing is clear: Obozo has the fight of his life coming up.

Jim said...

"So Jim, you're saying the poor would have to pay more than the wealthy or, "pay their fair share"?"

Well, I'm pretty sure a family with income of $50,000 is going to be paying pretty close to $4,500 in sales tax or 9% because they will spend most if not all of their income.

I'm guessing that a family with an income of $1,000,000 earned income is NOT going to spend anywhere near their total earned income. Let's say they live pretty high on the hog and spend $500,000 during the year. Their effective tax rate is 4.5% compared to the middle class family's 9%. And that doesn't even take into consideration the 0% tax on the wealthy family's investment income.

So, yeah.