Political Animal
Blog
You could almost hear the Herman Cain bubble bursting in last night’s debate, when literally all of the other Republican presidential candidates decided it was time to cut to the chase: Cain’s “9-9-9” tax plan is ridiculous.
Rick Santorum, for example, said, “Herman’s well-meaning, and I love his boldness, and it’s great. But the fact of the matter is, I mean, reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan.” Ron Paul called the Cain plan “very, very dangerous.” Mitt Romney said, “I like your chutzpah on this, Herman, but I have to tell you, the analysis I did, person by person, return by return, is that middle income people see higher taxes under your plan.”
After Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, Perry, and Romney each tore Cain’s plan to shreds, there was this exchange between CNN’s Anderson Cooper and Newt Gingrich:
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you have said in recent days that Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a harder sell than he lets on. How so?
GINGRICH: Well, you just watched it.
Cain made an effort to defend himself — he kept making strange references to apples and oranges, which, re-reading the transcript this morning, I still don’t understand — and referred voters to his website to read an analysis (pdf) from something called Fiscal Associates, which appears to be a financial-planning firm* in a small town in Michigan, which, for some reason, published a draft analysis of Cain’s proposal. Ezra Klein noted, “[E]ven the draft analysis doesn’t tell us much.”
Far more illuminating was actual research from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, published yesterday. The TPC measured the tax implications of the Cain plan for every income group and came to some striking conclusions: every American making $200,000 or less would see his or her tax burden go up, with the most severe increases coming at the lower end of the income spectrum. From there, the regressive curve gets more intense, with millionaires and billionaires set to receive a windfall as their tax burden is slashed dramatically.
Howard Gleckman put it this way:
A middle income household making between about $64,000 and $110,000 would get hit with an average tax increase of about $4,300, lowering its after-tax income by more than 6 percent and increasing its average federal tax rate (including income, payroll, estate and its share of the corporate income tax) from 18.8 percent to 23.7 percent. By contrast, a taxpayer in the top 0.1% (who makes more than $2.7 million) would enjoy an average tax cut of nearly$1.4 million, increasing his after-tax income by nearly 27 percent. His average effective tax rate would be cut almost in half to 17.9 percent. In Cain’s world, a typical household making more than $2.7 million would pay a smaller share of its income in federal taxes than one making less than $18,000. This would give Warren Buffet severe heartburn.
How do you like them apples, Herman?
* Correction: I’d originally used the phrase “family-planning firm,” rather than “financial-planning firm,” which, I admit, makes this one of the funnier slip-ups in a while. Thanks to Nanuq in comments for flagging this.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on October 19, 2011 8:51 AM:
Steve,
After asking "How do you like them apples, Herman?" you
should also ask him, "Orange you now going to rethink your 9-9-9 Plan?"
Danp on October 19, 2011 8:54 AM:
This was the only part of the debate I watched. What struck me was that all the candidates seemed to describe the plan differently, and there was nobody there to actually explain the details. It was a fact-free environment, where the winners and losers were defined by the audience's applause. And by the way, what exactly is a "revenue neutral" tax.
DAY on October 19, 2011 8:55 AM:
According to Cain, his 9-9-9- plan is quite simple.
And he can't explain it.
Who was the strange lady in the drum major's uniform?
googgleIt on October 19, 2011 9:01 AM:
Of course Art Laffer is gushing over 999 in the WSJ , an automatic disqualification .
berttheclock on October 19, 2011 9:04 AM:
Cain has taken pride in helping to stop the Clinton Health Care plan, by, personally, challenging President Clinton in a KCMO town hall meeting on the issue of employer mandated participation. Cain asked the President what he would say to employees he had to lay off because of the mandate.
Yes, Cain really cared about his employees, especially, the ones who lost their jobs, when, Cain took over Godfathers for Pillsbury and closed close to 500 stores in one of infamous, "belt tightening" moves. Cain, of course, took credit for putting Godfathers in the black, following releasing so many workers. However, I really wonder how he could keep saying such stupid things, as his 9-9-9 plan and his comment he would release all of the Gitmo terrorists in exchange for one of our soldiers, and contrast that with having a Masters from Purdue in Computer Science? Was he, truly, an example of a Peter Principle being helped along by Affirmative Action, a plan, he abhors?
Herman Cain on October 19, 2011 9:05 AM:
"Fuck you, it's not about apples and oranges it's about pizzas"...........
Equal Opportunity Cynic on October 19, 2011 9:06 AM:
...middle income people see higher taxes under your plan.
I thought that was a feature. About time those middle class freeloaders start doing more to support the Job Creators!
sick-n-effn-tired. on October 19, 2011 9:11 AM:
@Danp "It was a fact-free environment" Pretty much sums up the whole GOP/Faux NOOZE world doesn't it.
Last night was like a clown car pulling up at the circus disgorging clown after clown. The only thing missing was the red noses and big shoes.
kevo on October 19, 2011 9:12 AM:
The Republican approach to governance is more than a cruel joke!
Republican victories at the polls in 2012 will be testament to voter ignorance, the value of deceptive political campaigning, and/or voter indifference to enfranchisement.
Gimmicks and contempt toward the American Middle and Working classes seem to be the campaign strategy and working policy efforts of our modern Republican brand!
What a shame those "people" on the stage last night, what a shame! -Kevo
Basilisc on October 19, 2011 9:22 AM:
Equal Opportunity Cynic has it right. If the other Republican candidates are so horrified at the idea of increasing taxes on the middle class, then they should stop being horrified that (because of the recession and certain temporary provisions related to the stimulus) only about half of taxpayers had a positive federal income tax liability in the last year or two. Can't have it both ways, guys.
Sorry, I'm kidding. They're Republicans, so of course they can have it both ways. Intellectual consistency is for losers and Democrats.
jim filyaw on October 19, 2011 9:23 AM:
another humorous aspect to 9-9-9, arthur laffer of the famous curve eliminated whatever remaining claim to seriousness he had by endorsing cain's perpetual motion machine, er, economics. in g.o.p. mythology, laffer was the gipper's keynes. delusions die hard.
Nanuq on October 19, 2011 9:25 AM:
... Fiscal Associates, which appears to be a family-planning firm in a small town in Michigan, which, for some reason, published a draft analysis of Cain’s proposal.
I sure hope you meant a financial planning firm. Not sure why someone providing birth control options would be analyzing Cain's tax mess (although I suppose it could be in need of abortion).
Steve on October 19, 2011 9:58 AM:
West Bloomfield is not a "small town in Michigan," it is a very wealthy suburb of Detroit.
T2 on October 19, 2011 10:37 AM:
Cain's plan was revealed to the Republicans (the rest of us already knew it) as a Tax INCREASE. Therefore it is dead. So is Herm's campaign. That it took the slow-witted Rick Perry to actually point out that a 9 % National Sales Tax would be ADDED to State Sales Taxes resulting in a double taxation is an indication of how ill-thought out the 999 plan is. Face it, when Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum can see how stupid something is, it means it's REALLY STUPID.
Basilisc on October 19, 2011 10:48 AM:
My guess is your average right-wing financial planning firm has the same level of expertise and professional integrity as your average right-wing family planning firm. So it's really po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.
Notthere on October 19, 2011 11:04 AM:
I know some richer citizens hate to hear this. And it wouldn't need constant repetition if the privileged would recognize when they are better off, but ...
$64,000 to $110,000 ISN'T a middle household income! 2010 Census, median household was $49,445. Even for a family household the median was $61,544. And $110,000 takes you above the 80th percentile for families, and well above for all households!
I don't know why the smugly secure always fail to acknowledge where the real middle is.
bigtuna on October 19, 2011 12:11 PM:
I am impressed that anyone can watch this stuff. Cain cited Fiscal associates, from w. Bloomfield, MI?? THey look like a very ordinary investment company that tries to manage peoples wealth. Seems to be a father and kid shop, with reasonably well educated investment types.
That is, they appear to have little, or no, background in complex tax policy / tax law issues, and have no evidence for national level analyses of any kind.
KadeKo on October 19, 2011 12:15 PM:
I usually trust the Tax Policy Center implicitly.
So I didn't care to have a large range of income coupled with a precise "average" increase of $4300. That's a big difference from one end of the scale to the other.
It's an odd example; being less precise would be more accurate. And my instinct tells me they wouldn't lose any "startling headline" points with it.
Texas Aggie on October 19, 2011 12:31 PM:
the regressive curve gets more intense, with millionaires and billionaires set to receive a windfall as their tax burden is slashed dramatically."
Now we know why Cain is proud of his long association with the Koch bros. Tell me that this association and Cain's 9-9-9 aren't related.