21 October 2011

How Herman Cain's proposed "9-9-(0)-9" tax plan would affect taxpayers

I don't plan to blog about this candidate, because I think he'll be another "flavor of the day" ephemeral news story,  but this graphic of his tax plan was too striking to pass up.  I suspect it's not the "9s" that generate this disparity, but rather the usually-unmentioned "0" percent tax on capital gains.  Click (twice) to view.

p.s. - I couldn't get the image to embed in a readable form, so I had to hotlink it, and it may undergo linkrot in a few days.

From Ezra Klein's column at the Washington Post, via Reddit.


  1. Shocking isn't it? A businessman proposes a tax reform where businessmen will prosper.

  2. Shocking isn't it? A businessman proposes a tax reform where everyone will prosper.


    Snarkiness aside, I'm not a Cain supporter, but I am a fan of simplified tax codes. If the left wants to remedy what they see as injustice by adding a 9% tax on capital gains I'd be OK with that. The real problem with Cain's plan is that in 20 years it will be 15-15-15.

  3. So what you're saying is, right now, TODAY, the richest people in the country are paying a ridiculously disproportionate amount of taxes, and Hermain Cain wants to make sure everyone pays a fair share after he gets elected?

  4. Someone needs to go to a Cain rally with a sign that says, "Nein! Nein! Nein!"

    And should a pollster ever call me asking about Herman Cain, I'll deliberately confuse him or her by answering the questions as if they were about John McCain.


  5. Bret, where did I say prosperity for businessmen wouldn't be prosperity for all of us?


  6. The richest people pay a "ridiculous" amount of taxes because they are "ridiculously" rich.

    And they're paying less now than they have in a while, thanks to the Bush tax cuts.

    A flat tax doesn't work because, quite simply, in order to raise enough money to fund our society, it would have to be a ludicrously high- an undue burden on the poor and middle-class. The 999 plan would require drastic spending cuts.

    We could do that, yes. We could implement austerity, simply because rich people want to be richer. I would rather keep our society functioning smoothly and have the rich be slightly less ridiculously wealthy. Then at least they'll still have an educated pool of workers to make money off of, and roads so the workers can get to their factiories, etc.

  7. I read a book years ago--don't remember title or author--in which a man explains capitalism to a boy. He says the capitalist invests money once (oversimplified to make a point), and earns on the same investment forever, earning many times his original investment. The working man works for his money, and must work every day to get more. It really made me think.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...