Cain's 9-9-9 Tax Plan Could Hurt Retirees

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I have been trying to tell every fellow retiree I know that the 9-9-9 plan will kill us. We are living off our savings now, savings which were taxed at rates of 15,25,33 and higher in some cases. In addition, we paid 7.65% for FICA, so we paid a minimum of 23.65% of our pay in taxes. Our savings are thus a maximum of 72.35% of what we made. If we switch to the 9-9-9, we will pay 9% on everything new we buy including food and medical care(seniors two largest expenses.). In other words, a minimum of 32.65% of our savings were/will be taxed.
Those that still work would only pay 9% income tax, and then another 9%, or a total of 18% when they buy something, with after tax money.
Retirees will have the worst of both worlds- savings that were taxed at a MINIMUM of 23.65% and another 9% consumption tax. This 9-9-9 plan is a DISASTER. Why can't people see this? It is NOT that complicated to see.

Tony of DE 9:18PM October 17, 2011

ATTENTION BOBBI,
Yes, you will pay 9% sales tax to federal gov't and X percentage again to the state. But this is a far cry LESS than the current withholding.
Don't you get it? When money is withheld, it takes away your choice of what to do with it: save or spend.
At a 9% flat federal income tax rate, unless you are currently paying no federal income tax, you will be well ahead of the game.

Geneva of FL 2:20PM October 14, 2011

It would be even far worst, than Norquist suggested,if you are an SS retiree without a nest-egg. Though a lifelong conservative, I'm disabled (heart) a vet, andget $971 a month plus $16 food stamps. Cain's plan would soak me about $1800 a year, all coming out of my basic survival funding, as I have ZERO relatives, no kids, no property, but an old car. I can't afford to replace even cheap shoes! This hare-brained idea is so poorly thought through, that it is almost like wanting to send the elderly poor to A CAMP with a big GAS CHAMBER. There are thousands of vets who might resist on the way to such a fate! When
I was a soldier, early in Vietnam era. Buhdists were
setting themselves ablaze, to protest. Starve and bleed, the poorest, and the GOP will lose all credibility, and moral force!

Allan conservative veteran of CA 4:25PM October 13, 2011

I don't understand how someone can complain-about his 9-9-9 plan, because the sales tax goes up. Currently between illegal aliens, deadbeats, cheats, special favors and so on, there are far too many people avoiding their civic duties. A consumption tax (which is what I hear the most complaining about.) is the only way to make sure the people I mentioned above pay their "fair share" and everyone (I mean EVERYONE) has some "skin in the game." These are the things I hear our President say the most. I mean if they took less out of your check, wouldn't you not have more money to spend. In that case the added 9% sales tax wouldn't be the blow you think. Besides it might change some peoples spending habits for the better. I think we all can agree that Washington has a spending problem (as far as a revenue problem that is debatable, but the spending problem is not.) Not only does Washington but so do the majority of American households. I mean no matter what we do some people will be hurt by a tax change. As it stands right now America as a whole will be the one hurt the most by keeping our current tax stucture. You cannot simply tax the rich more, and not see any reprocussions from it. Plus How can one group shout and scream that the other should pay more, while you provide nothing additionnal and call that fair?
On "taxing the rich" or A.K.A. "The Buffet Tax", I am sorry, but if one more person complains about fairer taxes, but is against a consumption tax, then they are either an idiot, a bum with a handout, or so smart they have a better answer (I haven't seen anybody come forth with one yet.) That is literally the only thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, is that tax reform is long overdue (By at least 50 years). Yet again, I am sorry, but if you want a TRUE fairer tax system, then the poor are going to have to start paying more. Otherwise, "taxing the rich" is class warfare, mob rule and legislation of morality all rolled into one. Yes, it is class warfare when the rich (top 10%) pay over 50% of our taxes and the poor (bottom 40%) pay no income taxes at all, and yet when that fact has been proven to be correct, your argument becomes "well with all that money they can afford to pay a little more." Whether they can or not (or even whether it is their duty or not) doesn't change the fact that it's class warfare. When 90% of the country tries to tell the other 10% how much they should be taxed, then that is the very definition of mob rule. It's also the reason our government is a republic and not a true democracy (a true democracy is essentially mob rule, lucky for us our founders thought ahead.) No matter which way you slice it, greed is a moral issue. Do I like greed, of course not, but I don't feel like government should be the deciding factor on determining what scale of greed should be punished. It is essentially the same as government trying to legislate gluttony (which they are trying to do by taxing soft drinks at a higher rate.)

Ymerej of SC 12:26PM October 13, 2011

Add together his proposed 9% fed. sales tax, along with my state's 6% state sales tax, & it becomes a 15% total sales tax for every purchase. Stores sales will drop dramatically by low & middle income people of all ages, driving a significant number of small businesses completely out of business, resulting in an additional loss of jobs nationwide. The first ones to experience this will be businesses with state sales tax in the 7-1/2 to 8%+ range.
This has got to be a not-too-well-thought-out-end-result idea. Seniors will only make life or death purchases - even less than what they now do. And our government will have a new source of income to lend to other nations, fund new wars & prolong existing ones, plus be able to promise financial assistance to any rebels trying to overthrow their government. The likelihood of a federal sales tax income going toward our national debt is remote. It may be a win-win idea for our government but it's definitely a lose-lose for our citizens.

Bobbi of ID 11:39PM October 12, 2011

Unfortunately we Americans are not as well read as we should be but we a very visual. So whether this tax act is good or not will make no difference if it were to be voted for. Why 9-9-9? why not 10-10-10 or 8-8-8? As soon as someone looks at these #'s 9-9-9 the visual to 6-6-6 enters. Whether you believe in God or not you do recognize the symbol. I know it's a stupid argument but still a valid one. Why is it not 10-10-10 or 8-8-8?

Bruce of NV 8:32PM October 12, 2011

Paul: The problem is that without reform, significant reform, the present system will collapse and everyone will lose EVERYTHING.
So to nit pick different groups and say this one or that will be hurt is nonsense. Let's start by saying that borrowing 40% of the federal budget, and leaving yourself vulnerable when interest rate go up - and your $200 billion interest payment becomes $1.2 trillion and your largest budget item, is insanity.
So if you have a better idea, let's hear it. Because Cain's in the best plan I've seen - despite the naysayers who would rather do nohting nad then everyone suffers!

Blake Davis of NJ 4:49PM October 12, 2011

I wish Herman would just come out with the fair tax. Many of his supporters claim the 999 deal is a bridge to the fair tax which is a consumptive tax and makes more sense.

Steve of GA 1:47PM October 12, 2011

Cain's plan can pass because the American middle class will eat it up. True, this could bite retiree's a little bit, however, it would also cause unemployed individuals a little pinch as well, causing many of them to get off their butts and get a job, expanding the tax base, and thereby taking this from a revenue neutral plan to a net revenue positive plan. I would also happily search out older people in my region who are negatively impacted by this and generously assist them until the inevitable increase in their income as well based on extreme economic prosperity.

Veritas of WA 1:09PM October 12, 2011

Bill Wright wrote:
"Better to eliminate the Income Tax altogether, and just replace it with a national VAT that exempts basic food, clothing and health care, so as to not disproportionately impact the poor."
As soon as you have exemptions it isn't really a flat tax whether it is a tax on income or spending. What about heat? Affects the poor too. Fuel oil, natural/propane gas and electricity whether used for heat or otherwise are a necessity. What about gasoline? Is that a right? You exempt one thing you create an unnecessary and tedious filter. Why not exempt everything up to diamonds and yachts, then the rich people can create phony holding companies to buy the luxuries for them and everybody avoids tax. So flat tax or status quo.
As for Cain and 999, I suspect that a 666 tax infrastructure would work better but there is the political repercussions.
As to all these VAT tax schemes, do the states still continue to levy sales taxes or does the Fed do a kickback, I mean - revenue sharing scheme? Seems like another bureaucratic boondoggle.

Yacko of RI 3:22PM October 11, 2011