What do you guys think? Eliminate payroll taxes. 9% coprorate tax. 9% personal tax. 9% sales tax. Before you say it is not fair to low wage earners consider that eliminating payroll tax stops the 7.65% currently being lost on every wage $ from the worker side… All the “Rich” lose their special exemptions. Collect on everything. Eliminate a ton of paperwork. Sounds good to me, just have to deal with the massive layoffs from IRS & Accounting firms.
Marketed like a true pizza man.
I can’t wait to hear his plan for Israel/Palestine or Pakistan.
Why 9%? Why not 8 or 10%? Will this collect more or less revenue than current levels and by how much? What will happen with Social Security and Medicare?
According to the correspondents on Fox News some economists have reviewed the plan and belive that ot would generate as muchg revenue as the current code does. The 9-9-9- is actually the first stage of the plan as it is supposed to transition over time to a pure sales tax from what I have read.
I’m not sure how the numbers add up.
Considering that you have to make the money before you can spend it you’re not going to get any more money from a sales tax than you would income tax, possibly less.
That being said SS/Medicare etc is 15.65% considering both portions. That leaves 2.35% from the personal and sales tax and the 9% corporate tax.
Considering current corporate tax is a minimum of 15% and up I don’t see any gain there.
Now there may considerable amounts of money gained for revenue by eliminating “Tax breaks”. ~18% flat tax, Sales plus personal, with zero deductions is about the same effective rate as the top 5% are currently paying and far more than everyone else is.
That could offset the losses in the corporate tax.
All that being said I like the idea of a sales tax more than an income tax and I have no idea what a “Personal tax” would be other than a new name for an income tax.
I haven’t looked that far into the plan though.
~Matt
you can do that and I’m a proponent of cutting taxation but you have to re-evaluate the role of the Federal Government and with that cut most of what the Federal Government does.
Before you say it is not fair to low wage earners consider that eliminating payroll tax stops the 7.65% currently being lost on every wage $ from the worker side.
You’re assuming that all the payroll tax will go to wage-earners workers as effectively increased wages. There’s little reason to think that would be the case. If workers are now willing to work for $X in after-tax wages, and you change the tax code, they’re still willing to work for $X in after-tax wages. Just giving them the tax savings would be charity. That money should go to shareholders as increased profits or for capital investment. Both of those are good things and may indirectly help the “wage-earner,” but don’t pretend it would directly help the wage-earner.
On the other hand the sales tax would have a direct effect, effectively equivalent to an immediate 9% drop in purchasing power.
Marketed like a true pizza man.
I can’t wait to hear his plan for Israel/Palestine or Pakistan.
So you have no idea what to say so instead you choose to demean a man who has actually created jobs, created and operated a successful business and is willing to actually put out a plan instead of demagogue all economic issues, “PASS THIS BILL NOW”!! (what bill is that, it hasn’t yet been introduced, see one Barack Obama).
Marketed like a true pizza man.
I can’t wait to hear his plan for Israel/Palestine or Pakistan.
So you have no idea what to say so instead you choose to demean a man who has actually created jobs, created and operated a successful business and is willing to actually put out a plan instead of demagogue all economic issues, “PASS THIS BILL NOW”!! (what bill is that, it hasn’t yet been introduced, see one Barack Obama).
calm down, francis. How does it demean him? If I’ve got it right, he is quite proud of his accomplishments as a pizza magnate.
You have to admit that 9-9-9 sounds like a cheesy (no pun) pizza sales shtick. I’d like to see the details, or really, I’d like to see some fair-minded economists run the numbers (CBO?) and see how much revenue it would actually generate. I’m skeptical that it would be enough but I’m definitely open to the idea of drastically simplifying the tax code.
And I’m honestly interested in seeing his salesmanship extend to more issues.
I wish he would talk more about the giant global warming conspiracy. It’s always fun when he rants about that on his radio show.
It sounds similar to Jerry Brown’s flat tax proposal in '92:
He would replace the current tax code with a 13 percent income tax for individuals and apply a new 13 percent value-added tax (akin to a national sales tax) on all goods produced in the economy. Deductions would be allowed only for mortgage interest, rent, and charitable contributions. Businesses would also be allowed to deduct all equipment purchases in the first year instead of depreciating those expenses over several years.
**
It appears Brown’s was 13-13-13 instead of 9-9-9.
His degrees are in math, and computer science, and he was chairman of the kansas city fed at one time, so I think he's probably run the numbers. That said, I'd like to see some neutral analyses as well, and I think whatever plan we move to needs to be a little more than revenue neutral, because I'd like to see us retire the debt in a timely manner (in my mind that's maybe a 15yr horizon).
IF and that is a big IF it raised equivalent revenues and it eliminated all of the special interest exemptions, loopholes and credits…
Just think on the decrease of time wasted trying to figure out the tax code. Also remeber that perception is a huge determinant in the preceived “value” of something. If you eliminate loopholes and the corresponding lobbying then our elected reps may actually pay attention to us instead of the wallets. Public confidence in the gov’t would rise. I think most people agree to pay their fair share, just nobody agrees what that is. If the number is low enough the arguement goes away.
Doesn’t solve the problem of how it is spent.
Doesn’t solve the problem of how it is spent.
That of course is the bigger issue. Don’t control the spending and 9-9-9m becomes 10-10-10, 12-12-12…“screw it all your money belongs to us!”
~Matt
9% sales tax.
Would this be a new federal sales tax?
What would happen to state sales taxes?
(Under this plan.)
I believe tha, under his plan, the 9% national sales tax is on top of any state and local sales tax.
I believe tha, under his plan, the 9% national sales tax is on top of any state and local sales tax.
It appears so. It also appears that the estate tax would be abolished: just what we need, a new landed aristocracy. Pretty sure that this plan would end up with the poor paying higher taxes and the non-poor paying lower taxes.
Pretty sure that this plan would end up with the poor paying higher taxes and the non-poor paying lower taxes.
At first glance it would appear that this would result in everyone outside of the top 5% or so paying more taxes. Not sure if I would call the top 25% “Non poor” or not, but yes the “Poor” would definitely be paying more and the “Rich” would likely be paying slightly less.
~Matt
**You’re assuming that all the payroll tax will go to wage-earners workers as effectively increased wages. There’s little reason to think that would be the case. If workers are now willing to work for $X in after-tax wages, and you change the tax code, they’re still willing to work for $X in after-tax wages. Just giving them the tax savings would be charity. That money should go to shareholders as increased profits or for capital investment. Both of those are good things and may indirectly help the “wage-earner,” but don’t pretend it would directly help the wage-earner. **
Your saying that businesses would turn around and give all their employees a 7.5% CUT in pay and keep the extra for themself? No ones pay in described in terms of “take home pay”. It’s “I make $40k per year” or “I make $10 per hour”.
“PASS THIS BILL NOW”!! (what bill is that, it hasn’t yet been introduced, see one Barack Obama).
take your false partisan tripe elsewhere
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/09/american-jobs-act-read-all-details
Your saying that businesses would turn around and give all their employees a 7.5% CUT in pay and keep the extra >for themself?
Tha’ts what they would be expected to do under classical economic theory. Not doing that would put a company at a competitive disadvantage to a company that let the workers keep all the money.
No ones pay in described in terms of “take home pay”. It’s “I make $40k per year” or “I make $10 per hour”.
What’s truly important to workers is the net purchasing power of what they get to keep, which is a more accurate description of what you really make than “$40K/year.” What they really make is probably more like $25K/year, and that’s a more accurate value of how much that worker is worth. Their work doesn’t get more valuable because of changes in payroll tax.