Home

The employer keeps it or do you think Cain can enforce a government mandate that all employers must give all employees a 7.65% raise. If you do, then you should have no problem with the Obamacare individual mandate.

Keep repeating your imbecilic statements!! Cain is a successful businessman who forgot more economic sense then our little Warlord ever knew!

Not necessarily. There would have to be a payroll shift if something this different is implemented. Of course if the employee didn't get their 7.65% increase, they could always resign. You know, to show the business how much they dislike them!

So you don't know the difference between the government's job and a government investment.

I'm now very curious. What is your career MacLorry?

Debunking scams and dumping out the kool-aid. That takes time and some folks drink the kool-aid before I can dump it. It looks like you were first in line for Cain's batch.

You see, that's the problem. I DO know the difference.
It's the 28th Amendment. "The federal gubmint shall promote chillens!"

Do try to follow along and I'll explain again how Cain's plan increases the cost of labor.

Right now an employer pays 7.65% in payroll taxes on the wages they pay employees. Under Cain's plan, the 7.65% is eliminated, but so is the tax deduction for wages paid. As it is now, for every $1,000 in wages paid the employer pays $76.50 in payroll taxes. Under Cain's plan the tax on that same $1,000 wage is $90.00 for an increase of $13.5. That increase in labor cost makes American labor less competitive, so an employer looking to create a new job has even more reason to create that job overseas even if the overall income tax rate under Cain's plan is less than what they pay now.

Under current law subchapter S corporation (most small businesses) pay ZERO income tax on net profits, but Cain's plan eliminates this distinction and taxes all corporations at 9%. The owners of a small business pay the 9% corporate tax, plus the 9% individual tax, plus the 9% sales tax, for a total rate of 27%. Many small businesses owners have a lower effective tax rate under the current system because of deductions. If you buy the argument that raising taxes on job creators is bad for the economy, then Cain's 999 plan is bad for the economy.

I promise you he worked for the government, never saved, has zero retirement, and now needs "the rich" to pay for his lack of stewardship in the form of SS.

That's what I figured, a government job.
Good night.

Who are you addressing? I just happen to know a bit about the current tax system and how to evaluate Cain's plan. If my numbers are wrong, just show that's the case with your own numbers. Can you do that?

Who are you addressing? I just happen to know a bit about the current tax system and how to evaluate Cain's plan. If my numbers are wrong, just show that's the case with your own numbers. Can you do that?

Are you sure that the corporation would not be able to deduct the $1,000 paid in wages in arriving at a net taxable income? I have not seen details that say that it would be a 9% gross receipts tax. Under present accounting rules, even GROSS income can include a deduction for "cost of goods sold", which includes certain labor expense. NET income includes a deduction for even more compensation expenses. If it's a 9% tax on gross or net income and not gross receipts, your assumptions are incorrect.

Again, I'm not certain of the details, but I highly doubt whether S corporation owners will be double taxed under the 999 plan. If the S corporation income is taxed at 9%, then it could/would likley be distributed to the shareholders/owners as non-taxable dividend income.

It would make no sense to do so otherwise. Even under the current system, S corporation income is passed through as income to the shareholder so that it is not taxed at both the corporate and individual level.

For starters, you are making crap up. Where in the world are you getting this idea that employers will pay a 9% tax on wages paid. Incorrect, as I understand his suggestions. the number is zero.

The elimination of payroll taxes WILL end up in wages as all employers will have this tax eliminated....and we all know about markets and competition, or least some of us do.

Also, what in the earth is your hang up over the wealthy not having to pay cap gains?

Several times you have resorted to your semicommi blabber fussing about the rich not paying the same percentage of their income due to living off of cap gains.

You plainly cannot understand that cap gains is very much unlike income.

Do you understand that if they inherited their wealth that it already had to pass through the most unethical of tax doors, the death tax...if they made it, it has already been taxed heavily via the heavily graduated income tax...if they won it it has already been taxed heavily? Are you just a big proponent of double taxation...or are you just so friggen envious and selfish that you cannot stomach the wealthier growing wealthier?

Cain's website says the plan "eliminates double taxation of dividends". This leads me to believe that dividends would not be taxable to the individual, under the assumption that the tax was paid at the corporate level. If so, I do not believe shareholders would be taxed on both the corporate income and again when the income is paid out as dividends.