GreenCarder · Oct 18, 2011 at 3:08pm

Jim Pethokoukis reports that Steve Moore, Economic Editor at the Wall Street Journal and one of the architects of Herman Cain's 999 plan may be having second thoughts about the creation of a new national sales tax. Realizing the potentially immense political obstacles - on both sides of the spectrum - to introducing a new tax, he floats abandoning the 9% national sales tax in favor of a 9% payroll tax (uncapped). On Larry Kudlow's radio show he said:

I love the idea [of a 9 percent national sales tax]. As you know, Art Laffer and I helped design the plan. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the American people and the voters do not want a national sales tax. He’s going to have to replace that national sales tax with a 9 percent payroll tax. And if you do that it’s a total winner. … I’m surprised how hostile people are to the sales tax. When we designed this plan, I thought people would go along with the 9 percent sales tax. But the point is they won’t. And why not just do a payroll tax. It’s the devil we know …

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Tom Paine
Joined
Aug '11
Tom Paine

Absurd.  Perhaps 3 percent of the population have paid the slightest attention to Cain's 999 plan and Kudlow claims there's some popular outrage about the sales tax component? 

Maybe people on the right should call a moratorium on nitpicking Cain's plan.  That's the job of the left. 

CJRun
Joined
Dec '10
CJRun

Absolute death, which explains why Moore is not running.

As the plan stands now, it already taxes income at 9% at the personal level, then again at 9% at the business level, as businesses cannot deduct labor costs.  That is the biggest flaw.  The sales tax should be less than a wash, as the overall tax burden is decreased.

Eliminating the 9 % consumption tax loses the ability to get non-contributors from the black market into the pool, beyond the gas for their Escalades and the excise tax on their cellphones.  It's a big factor.

There is no political point to 999, absent getting non-contributors into the system.

Seniors, those others on fixed incomes, and even gang bangers, should not notice a change at the cash register, except to the extent that our dollar continues to be devalued by Bernanke.  That is a different problem.   999 means that the tax burden for most, goes down.

Adding a third 9 to the incomes of the people already paying taxes on their incomes (9 personal, 9 business, 9 payroll), is the sort of foolishness that only an oblivious wonk would utter.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Sweet, I'd go from about 7% total federal tax burden each year to 18%. Now I'm paying my fair share on my marginally better than median income. /sarcasm off.


Joined
Sep '10
liberal jim

Most marketing gimmicks unravel sooner or latter.  This one looks like it will be sooner.

Good Bye hermann

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser

 My customers would have seen a 10% increase in the cost of my services: 9% for the tax and 1% for the time and hassle and audit-anxiety of administering the tax.

Good riddance.

Diego Sun Devil
Joined
Apr '11
Diego Sun Devil

There will pains of some kind to somebody no matter what changes are made.  Sorry to those whom it might create more work, but in the long run, it seems easier on the country as a whole and that I can get behind.  No other candidate has a plan anywhere near as good as this.

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson

Hmm, interesting - looking forward to hearing more. I think it's a step in the right direction.

Freeven
Joined
Dec '10
Freeven

This may be the death of Cain and his 999 plan. When those who helped design it aren't on board, an already uphill climb becomes that much steeper. Doing this publicly is poor form on Moore's part. He doesn't disagree with the plan; he just has doubts about the ability to sell it. He should shut up and give Cain the chance to make his case.

Talleyrand
Joined
May '10
Talleyrand

 Yes, an increase in the tax on employment is a great idea in a recession, well done Mr Moore. A tax on consumption is preferable, universal, and less avoidable, than a tax on employment and thus on those that are actually working. How is this hard to understand?

Scott Reusser
Joined
May '10
Scott Reusser
Talleyrand:  A tax on consumption is [...] less avoidable...

It's quite avoidable in many circumstances: I have customers all the time offering me cash to avoid our 7.75% state and county tax. Throw on another 9% for a total of 16.75% in potential savings, and the temptation for a perfectly easy cash transaction would be huge. (For the record, IRS, I'd resist, just as I do now.)


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In