Analysis of Cain's tax plans

The Coffee Shop
1

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/?hp

Summation:

At a minimum, the Cain plan is a distributional monstrosity. The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase.

Even allowing for the poorly thought through promises routinely made on the campaign trail, Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived.

And lest you think the author is some socialist bleeding-heart liberal Obama ballwasher:

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

2

The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut

Is this a problem?

with no guarantee that economic growth will increase

Does any tax plan come with such a guarantee?

**and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase. **

If the government spends more than they bring in in revenue any tax plan will result in increasing deficits.

Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived, if you believe the poor paying more is a bad thing and if you believe the government needs more revenue*.*

Fixed that for you.

~Matt

3

The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut

Is this a problem?

with no guarantee that economic growth will increase

Does any tax plan come with such a guarantee?

**and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase. **

If the government spends more than they bring in in revenue any tax plan will result in increasing deficits.

Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived, if you believe the poor paying more is a bad thing and if you believe the government needs more revenue*.*

Fixed that for you.

~Matt

Your Darwinian, f***-em if they can’t keep up attitude makes me puke. One big reason the poor are poor is that they don’t have money. Increase their taxes: yeah, that’s a good thing.

4

Your Darwinian, f*-em if they can’t keep up attitude makes me puke.**

Do you always go off the cliff when you don’t have a viable answer?

One big reason the poor are poor is that they don’t have money.

Wow really…hadn’t thought of that. I thought they were poor because they had tons of cash in their mattress. Can you explain to me how an individual that has no money could pay any taxes on that money? I mean if they are truly poor then how could their taxes be raised?

Increase their taxes: yeah, that’s a good thing.

Actually I would rarely say that raising anyone’s taxes is a good thing. That is not the point however. The point is, is having them pay more than they are now in lieu of others paying less “A good thing”. That is an entirely different question than “Is paying more taxes a good thing?”

~Matt

5

Matt

As usual thanks for your input which is typically great, articulated far better than I ever could.

6

Your Darwinian, f*-em if they can’t keep up attitude makes me puke.**

Do you always go off the cliff when you don’t have a viable answer?

One big reason the poor are poor is that they don’t have money.

Wow really…hadn’t thought of that. I thought they were poor because they had tons of cash in their mattress. Can you explain to me how an individual that has no money could pay any taxes on that money? I mean if they are truly poor then how could their taxes be raised?

Increase their taxes: yeah, that’s a good thing.

Actually I would rarely say that raising anyone’s taxes is a good thing. That is not the point however. The point is, is having them pay more than they are now in lieu of others paying less “A good thing”. That is an entirely different question than “Is paying more taxes a good thing?”

~Matt

No, I only go off the deep end when people like you continue to push for a society that most people in the civilized world would be aghast at. And you know what “poor” means, and it’s not penniless.

It’s been explained to you so many times even I get nauseated. The poor pay taxes already, all over the place. They pay a really high percentage of what they have (sales, payroll and other taxes). You seem to think it would be a good idea if they pay more. I think that sucks.

Fine, I’ll play your game. Explain to me how it is good for the economy and for society for the rich to pay less and the poor to pay more.

7

Matt

As usual thanks for your input which is typically great, articulated far better than I ever could.

What, exactly, in the following to which you replied, is “articulated”?

Do you always go off the cliff when you don’t have a viable answer?

Wow really…hadn’t thought of that. I thought they were poor because they had tons of cash in their mattress. Can you explain to me how an individual that has no money could pay any taxes on that money? I mean if they are truly poor then how could their taxes be raised?

Actually I would rarely say that raising anyone’s taxes is a good thing. That is not the point however. The point is, is having them pay more than they are now in lieu of others paying less “A good thing”. That is an entirely different question than “Is paying more taxes a good thing?”

I don’t see a single thing in there that isn’t sarcasm, rhetorical questions, or who knows what?

8

Cain’s proposed eventual 30% sales tax (the 23% is only for people who don’t understand how to calculate percentages) sounds pretty draconian to me. It would basically replace Obama’s class warfare with generational warfare, since hardest hit would be retired people. The latter supported the government via income taxes for decades, but now that their incomes are reduced, they would get little of the benefit of the reduced income tax but still bear the full consumption tax.

9

No, I only go off the deep end when people like you continue to push for a society that most people in the civilized world would be aghast at.

And what society am I pushing for?

And you know what “poor” means, and it’s not penniless.

Actually no I don’t and neither do you. The fact of the matter is that as a society we no more have an agreed upon definition of “Poor” than we do “Rich” as pointed out with the thread I started the other day.

Cain’s tax policy actually deals with this problem far better than our current system, IMO, by placing a tax on “Spending” rather than “Income”.

The poor pay taxes already, all over the place. They pay a really high percentage of what they have (sales, payroll and other taxes). You seem to think it would be a good idea if they pay more. I think that sucks.

Here I think you’ll find that you must delve into Cain’s actual policy rather than just posting an article. If you want to include all taxes I think you would find that the “Poor” have an opportunity to pay less taxes if they want.

Since “Buying things” is an option then “The poor” as well as everyone else would have the option to pay less in taxes.

Explain to me how it is good for the economy and for society for the rich to pay less and the poor to pay more.

I can give several reasons.

The first is that if a person is never faced with a problem they are never forced to figure out a solution. A person that is never faced with having to pay for food, clothing and shelter…insurance, cell phone, internet access is never faced with having to find a solution to get those things. This by default removes opportunity from those individuals. Removing opportunity removes and stunts ability to grow, innovate, etc. Contrary to popular believe struggling is good.

Second is the fact that if a person is not responsible for the items they are consuming they remain completely unengaged in the system they are receiving benefit from. Why worry about what’s happening at the local schools if you have sacrificed nothing for those schools? Why be engaged in the actions of the city workers, politicians etc etc if you have nothing to loose and only something to gain by their actions. In essence we have created a system that has disengaged a large portion of the populous on some level.

Third, at least in the case of Cain’s tax, you have given the tax payer the opportunity to pay tax or not by buying or not buying products.

Fourth I find it sad that there is a default position that the only way to care for those that need help is via taxes. You claim that I push for a society that the rest of the civilized world would be aghast at. Yet the society I push for is one where people voluntarily take care of others and at the same time offer them opportunities to better themselves that are in large part squelched in our current society. If the rest of civilized world is aghast at such a society I dare say the rest of the civilized world it wrong.

~Matt

10

I don’t see a single thing in there that isn’t sarcasm, rhetorical questions, or who knows what?

And this gem is what?

Your Darwinian, f***-em if they can’t keep up attitude makes me puke. One big reason the poor are poor is that they don’t have money. Increase their taxes: yeah, that’s a good thing.

I responded to your meaningless response with obvious answers to the questions I originally posted that you clearly had no answers for except more of the same content with no thought behind it.

No tax code guarantees a better economy. That charge is pointless.

Under this plan “Poor people” would pay taxes based on what they spent. Income taxes at the federal level would remain about the same for them. Not sure if the Cain plan excludes food or not but if it did then the only “Poor people” that would be paying more money would be the poor people buying “Other things”, which I have zero problem with them paying more for X-Boxes, home theatres, TV’s, Cable etc etc.

~Matt

11

The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut

Is this a problem?

with no guarantee that economic growth will increase

Does any tax plan come with such a guarantee?

**and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase. **

If the government spends more than they bring in in revenue any tax plan will result in increasing deficits.

Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived, if you believe the poor paying more is a bad thing and if you believe the government needs more revenue*.*

Fixed that for you.

~Matt

Your Darwinian, f***-em if they can’t keep up attitude makes me puke. One big reason the poor are poor is that they don’t have money. Increase their taxes: yeah, that’s a good thing.

It comes down to incentives–stop giving people money for fucking free and they might go out and work for a change, hell, they may even start their own businesses.

These people don’t pay any taxes, yet, we are supposed to simply give them more freebies and handouts, yeah, that’s a good thing.

12

can we stop referring to taxation as a form of warfare? That’s stupid. kthxbai.

13

According to Cain, there would be no exception for food.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/10/09/herman_cain_and_michele_bachmann_on_state_of_the_union_111628.html

Ken’s first post summation holds, this is a terrible plan which is more radically partisan than anything I’ve seen, and has been panned by economists across the political spectrum:

At a minimum, the Cain plan is a distributional monstrosity. The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase.

Even allowing for the poorly thought through promises routinely made on the campaign trail, Mr. Cain’s tax plan stands out as exceptionally ill conceived.

14

I don’t see a single thing in there that isn’t sarcasm, rhetorical questions, or who knows what?

And this gem is what?

Your Darwinian, f***-em if they can’t keep up attitude makes me puke. One big reason the poor are poor is that they don’t have money. Increase their taxes: yeah, that’s a good thing.

For crying out loud: the responder didn’t comment on my post, he commented on yours. Whether my post had anything valuable is irrelevant to the question of whether yours did. Or does the value of your post change when compared to something else? Relativism much?

15

can we stop referring to taxation as a form of warfare? That’s stupid. kthxbai.

Well, they do both involve one group of people taking something from another ultimately under the threat of guns.

16

can we stop referring to taxation as a form of warfare?

No it must be referred to as either “warfare” or “stealing.” The fact that the taxes were approved by two bodies of elected representatives, signed into law by an elected executive, and Constitutionally rock solid both by challenge to the Supreme Court and good-old literal reading should not deter anyone. It’s “feelings” that count here, and you have to respect feelings.

17

he commented on yours.

And you commented on mine. And yes it is relative whether a post makes an articulate point or not if it is being taken in or out of context. If someone makes a post that is little more than gibberish the response to that post should be taken in that context. Sarcasm is often a response to ignorance and incivility.

~Matt

18

No it must be referred to as either “warfare” or “stealing.” The fact that the taxes were approved by two bodies of elected representatives, signed into law by an elected executive, and Constitutionally rock solid both by challenge to the Supreme Court and good-old literal reading should not deter anyone. It’s “feelings” that count here, and you have to respect feelings.

Brilliant answer!

19

he commented on yours.

And you commented on mine. And yes it is relative whether a post makes an articulate point or not if it is being taken in or out of context. If someone makes a post that is little more than gibberish the response to that post should be taken in that context. Sarcasm is often a response to ignorance and incivility.

~Matt

Bulls***. Your post added nothing, which is why I asked the responder what, exactly, was so articulate about your response. It has nothing to do with my post.

How you can claim that context can change gibberish into articulate is beyond me.

20

I do my Father-in-laws taxes every year for him. He is a full time janitor and is considered ‘poor’. (Don’t looks at his multiple flat screens, 4 cell phones, stainless appliances or leather couches). His federal tax rate for last year was a NEGATIVE 22.14%. That is right, he not only didn’t end up paying taxes, but he got a massive refund. How exactly do the rich pay less taxes than the ‘poor’?