The Tax Policy Center agrees with you, Heather. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/tpc-does-herman-cain/

Don't forget that the current tax structure will no longer be in effect. You are already paying federal taxes (based only your production) as well as State taxes. The 9-9-9 plan lowers the hit on your Income, but trades it with the sales tax. This will give you more control over how much you pay to the federal government based on your buying decisions (sales tax applies to only new goods).

Also, This plan is meant to be a phase in the transition to a "Fair tax" type system, where your income will no longer be subjected to the sticky fingers of the federal government, but you pay taxes on what you decide to buy. No more lobbyists, loopholes, or crony-capitalism.

Apparently, the Cain plan will exempt those below the poverty level.

While I don't think the 9's plan will become law, it's doing a great job of re-opening the discussion. It would be very difficult to move to a completely flat tax, but we can not have 47% of the income earners paying no federal tax either.

Absolutely wrong. Forget the current system that got us into this mess and allows Congress free reign over the U.S. Checkbook.

Cain's plan has been Vetted by the best, including Arthur Laffer, who states that it will work.
IB Times has said is Fair and equitable. Could actually be better for all because the corporations that left America in the last 15 years would return and bring back manufacturing jobs, which elevate engineering , math and the sciences.... that which America lacks.

Herman Cain is a Genius with this 999 Plan. As a Mathematician, CEO, and passed Federal Reserve Chairman there is no better candidate or more eligible person for President.

I'm a small business owner who has had to shut 4 businesses down and I won't hire or invest until our economic situation changes. I've done the math. 999 is the Ideal way to get businesses back to investing and hiring. Also it removes all class warfare and now future liberals will NOT be able to raise the tax because 100% of the people will be against it (unless it truly is necessary).

Are you stupid or just not paying attention? The 9-9-9 plan REPLACES the entire tax code. No more graduated income tax. No more 15.3% Social Security / Medicare tax. No more capital gains tax. No more inheritance tax. As for the evaluation by the Tax Policy Center, the TPC is funded by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, both of which are quintessential Washington Establishment. I have problems with the 9-9-9 plan, but not what is being portrayed. IMHO, there needs to be a tax on wealth that hasn't and never would be taxed, like that of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.

@Dustin Block -

Seriously, Krugman is nothing more than a partisan hack when it comes to being an economist! I would never cite Krugman as being a reputable source, just like I wouldn’t cite the Heritage Foundation either. An independent analysis would be the fairest to go off of in using such as a basis upon which to form an educated opinion.

Krugman won a Nobel Prize for his economics work.

@Dustin Block -

Proves nothing. Come on, Obama also won a Nobel Prize for doing what again exactly? Oh yeah, that's right - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

The Nobel Prizes significantly lost their significance, status, and prestige when they just started randomly handing them out for no justifiable reason at all. And if Krugman is so good, then why didn’t he see the recent .com, tech, and housing bubbles coming much sooner than he did? Economists backing the Austrian School of economics effectively predicted and warned about the housing bubble as early as 2002. Krugman was no where to be seen until the crash was practically upon us.

Not to mention some of his recent op-eds in the New York Times. Like I said, the guy is a partisan hack!

Dustin= Winning a Nobel Prize doesn't mean anything. Obama won one for peace and he started a third war without approval, expanded the predator program to Africa, kills American citizens without trial and kept Gitmo open, not to mention arming drug cartels.

The 9-9-9 plan is actually the tax plan currently used in the game SIM city. If it works for a video game community, why shouldn't it work for the United States! You go Herman Cain!

I think the tax burden should be more equitably distributed as well. However, taxing poor people at 9% on top of the sales tax they already pay for the necessities (not disposable income) is not going to help but hurt and send more people to seek safety net services for longer periods of time.

A flatter, more simple tax would alleviate a lot of issues and not place undue burdens on the middle and lower socio-economic rungs of the ladder. Eliminating capital gains taxes, however, when a lot of wealth is derived from capital gains as income but is not treated as such, defeats the purpose of using a 9% income tax. Unless capital gains are redefined as income in the tax code, of course.

Other 'flat tax' proposals (like the one Forbes ran with) have included rebates and such to give money back to those under a certain income level. I think that needs to be a piece of any tax plan.

Simplification of the tax code probably would save tons of money by shrinking the IRS budget.

Thanks, Tom

That's a good point with the corporations. Currently, many try to avoid paying their taxes to the US because we have the second highest corporate rate in the world. Lowering that tax rate would mean that multinationals will pay their income taxes to the US and declare all of their losses overseas to avoid the higher tax rates.

the 999 plan is just plain bad for everyone, you can not use the KISS method to run a country (keep it simply stupid) . For anyone to think this plan would be fair then your not making less then 20,000 a year.

Rememer its the working class that would see the most of theses new taxes, Americans making more then 100,000 and large corporations would being paying less taxes.

who are we fighting for?

Oh by the way, Even if this guy did get elected it would NEVER get passed, The republicans in congress can barely pass a jobs bill much less this major change.

There are already far too many companies here in Wisconsin not paying any income taxes. Imagine what could happen with the state coffers should the tax be flatter without loopholes for everyone, even corporations. That way, no fancy accounting or tax credits without proof that they lead to job creation. Individuals get paid and a flat % comes out, no claims for interest or other deductions. Win-win for all.

Excellent analogy, Bob!

So we should sit back and not consider options? That's not my way of getting things done.

No, but frankly considering this option in light of the snowball's chance in you-know-what it has of actually coming to fruition shouldn't consume more than a couple of minutes at best.

There's a reason it's 9-9-9, not 8-10-6 or 7-5-11, and frankly that's about all the serious thought that went into it. It's the "$5 Footlong" of tax strategies. How much serious discussion does it really warrant?

It's just like it always is. You have the two top contenders going at over something as consequential as whose dog pooped in whose yard (Romny v Perry over who should have known what, when about the undocumented lawnmower jockey) and then you have the others trying to come up with something that'll separate them from the rest of the backfield.

What needs to be looked at week to week here is who looks most presidential, who seems least likely to collapse under the pressure of the spotlight (from what I've seen Cain's already had to backtrack on a comment he made about bargaining with terrorists) and who, ultimately, has the best chance of giving Obama a run for his money. Getting hung up on individual proposals at this point misses the big picture.

@Bob, this is the sort of plan that looks good on the surface -- until you do the arithmetic. The same can be said about the candidate -- this is a clue to his actual governing ability if we're dumb enough to put him into office. And don't jump on me. I felt the same way about Carter and Obama -- all sizzle, no steak.

I'm not going to Randy, buy I don't know that that's always the case because so much of this stuff is generated by handlers, unfortunately. But, if nothing else, it does bring Cain to the forefront long enough to evaluate how he handles being in that position and, perhaps, to get a glimpse of how much is sizzle and how much is really steak. Obviously the same goes for any of the others who manage to break out of the pack for any period of time.

"It's the "$5 Footlong" of tax strategies. How much serious discussion does it really warrant?"
I feel it warrents a lot of discussion, taxing and spending are the driving force driving us off a cliff. To ignore options is the deffinition of ignorance. It may well not be THE answer, but the discussion needs to be had. If you want to sit on the sidelines, OK, but the system will move on without you.

Greg,

We've been having this discussion for years and should continue to, but just because a candidate throws something out there doesn't mean it warrants serious consideration. In fact, for a candidate who purports to be a serious one for the office to put forth a plan like this in a serious fashion, doesn't do a lot to afford him serious consideration either.

But let's just, for the sake of argument, say you've given it some serious thought. Can you tell me why its 9-9-9, as opposed to 8-10-6 or some other combination of numbers? How is it that that particular number combination just happens to be the ideal one for a revised tax system?

Bob, I'd guess it's a marketing issue. 333 sounds better to me.

Bingo.

The whole nine-nine-nine is only 'one off', of perfection;letter that is.

none-none-none

But wait there's more....

plus shipping and handling

@Bob McBride -

Don't be so hard on Ron Paul - give the man a break. He makes many good and sound points. He actually warned Congress about the housing bubble and financial crash of 2008 back in 2003. If more people on Capitol Hill had listened to Ron Paul back then, maybe we wouldn't have the mess that we're presently dealing with.

There's usually value in all viewpoints, and our political leaders should listen to and consider them all before acting. Only then will we ever find the best ways to approach, deal with, and resolve our problems.

An additional point to be made - both Ryan and Cains have been completely open regarding each's proposed solution for attempting to fix this country's fiscal woes, thus drawing much criticism. There appears to be no hidden methods here for achieving fiscal goals, which seems to be the biggest issue with those opposing Walker.

No fortunately Ryan and Cain are putting themselves in political jeopardy for proposing stupid solutions coddling the obscenely wealthy.

Your post is entirely predictable. Look beyond your partisan blinders.

By the way, you never responded to the links that I provided, per your request, in Jason P's article........just for kicks.

For taking the risk politically, that puts him in the most Presidential drivers seat. Many here are not taking into account that 999 is a flat tax, and no one is considering is that 47% of Americans, 111 would be a tax increase for them as they pay no federal taxes.

But the thing that really gets me is that the liberal class warfare has done nothiing but divide, has been proven through the last several stimulus programs to be totally ineffective and would never generate enough permanent jobs or revenue to pay for itself, let alone bring down debt. Yet Obama and Reid are never taken to task for offering up such a ridiculous plan.

At least with Cain's plan, it will generate sufficient revenue. And don't forget, Cain would sign Ryan's bill. Together, there is a real chance of fixing the nation's problems and it is across the board; fair.

Note: This is what we pass today. Once the national debt is under control, federal spending is reigned in, and the government starts operating in a more efficient and effective manner, then the brackets in the income tax can be eliminated for a flat across the board tax and other rates can go down according to revenue demands.

Ah, JRH ... were it just this easy ... sigh.

Everyone's taxes go down except those who currently don't pay any taxes. What's not to love here? This should pass in a heartbeat if our politicians were working for the people as a whole as opposed to select special interests. What would the rational be behind opposition to such a plan? I’d love to see it, cause unlike other politicians, I’m ready to debunk any criticisms with fact and logical analysis!

It really is this easy – we just have to do it, that’s all :-)

Kindly cut the crap about 50% of the country not paying taxes, when we have the obscenely wealth not paying what they should.

@Keith.... What percentage of the people that file Federal Income Tax Returns should not pay any Federal Income Tax? I'd say the non-payer group needs to be < 1/3, so it's about half again larger than it should be;we can't have half the people with no skin in the game.

@JRH --"Federal Income Tax (applicable to all gross income):
$0 - $125,000 - 8% "

Gross income? Starting on dollar one, with no deductions or exemptions? My taxes would definitely go up, and i pay anywhere from a few hundred dollars to several thousand in federal income tax currently.

There were a few years where I paid self-employment tax (FICA) but owed no federal income tax. What makes you say that I had 'no skin in the game'? As an American citizen, policy affected me just as much as everyone else.

@Keith Schmitz -

What 'crap' are you referring to exactly? Top 1% currently shoulders 40% of general federal tax revenues collected. Top 10% between 60%-75% of the burden. These are FACTS taken directly from the federal government. So please, don’t try to spin your propaganda here.

Looks to me like those that do pay are in fact paying MORE than their fair share. The problem lies in those who use loopholes, off-shore shelters, and accounting gimmicks to significantly lower or completely negate any federal tax burden that they otherwise may have and thereby effectively pay nothing or close to it.

Remember, the 49% that currently don't pay anything is composed of people within every financial class, from the destitute to the extremely wealthy. What we need is to get everyone paying something, even if just a nominal consumption tax (as recommended in my plan) - no free rides!

If you’d like to comment further, might I suggest doing so with hard facts and logical analysis instead of the propaganda and rhetoric that we’ve all become use to from you – it’s really starting to get old.

@Randy1949 -

The current lowest federal income tax bracket is $0-$8500 - 10%. And yes, by using deductions and exemptions, you can effectively negate your burden down to $0. That's not the case with my plan. However, under my plan, you'll no longer be paying the FICA withholdings, which ordinarily runs in the neighborhood of 6.2% - 7.65% (the recent temporary reductions not withstanding) regardless.

So, even though you'll be paying a little more by not being able to use deductions or exemptions any longer, the increase you would realize would be a relatively nominal 2% or less.

And, as stated in my note, once the federal debt repayment becomes manageable, those rates can be adjusted downward even more and the brackets could eventually be phased out in favor of a universal flat tax.

By decreasing the tax burden on business and investment income, the price of goods should go down, demand should go up, hiring would occur to meet demand, your pay should start to once again increase instead of decrease, and you'll actually experience a higher standard of living, despite having to pay a nominal amount more than whatever your current tax burden may be. That is of course, if the assumptions of an expense-based pricing model hold true – however, such would be logically expected to do so.

The only exemption allowed would be for family's raising special needs children, which I would hope that everyone would agree as to the fairness of such a limited exemption.

So now we're going to tax everyone at a flat rate, fine. It finally brings the bottom 47% on board who are not paying federal income taxes today. Question: what are we going to do about the hidden taxes on the poor? Although the poor don't pay much in the way of federal income taxes we tax them in other ways. Namely alcohol, cigarettes and the lottery. All vices of the poor and we tax the heck out of them via taxing the vice. Do we now roll back the hefty taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and eliminate the lottery? Would seem fair to me if we're going to start making them pay federal income taxes as well as sales tax on necessities.

@235301 -

Hell no we don't roll back your so-called 'vice' taxes, as none of those products are necessaries - they are luxuries. The truly poor should only be spending what little they have on necessities - not vices or luxuries. Otherwise, they aren’t truly poor, are they? And we would have more revenue to be able to help and assist the truly poor with my proposed tax plan.

Those who are buying vices/luxuries are not truly poor. And if the truly poor are spending ‘their’ money on vices instead of necessaries, then they don't get to take advantage of the gov help and assistance programs. They have to start behaving responsibly and trying to help themselves first before the gov starts helping and assisting. Otherwise, we again end up with the kind of bs assistance programs that we already have in which we are essentially subsiding irresponsible behavior. What kind of message does that send? It’s insultive to those of us who work for a living to take care of our families to make us pay for another’s irresponsible lifestyle, isn’t it? Wall Street bailouts were the same thing. The gov shouldn’t be subsidizing irresponsible behavior whether it be a Wall Street firm or a wino on the street – it’s that simple.

At least we're starting to move in the right direction, like the states that are implementing mandatory and random drug screenings in order to qualify for government assistance.

And before you say 'we'll what if they're addicted,' there are plenty of free community, church based, and charitable programs that such addicted poor people could take advantage of without the gov needing to hold their hands to do it! Like I said they have to start helping themselves first!

That's the way we start fixing the broken mindset of our country.

Enough with the Koch Brothers already! Can't your side put up anything factual as opposed to this never ending conspiracy theory b.s.? Come on already – give us facts, analysis, and logical conclusion. But please skip the propaganda and rhetoric – we’ve heard it all before and it’s really starting to get old!