:agree::agree::agree:

I would rather a pizza guy running the country then an Acorn thug.:ohdear:

You either need remedial reading or stop letting your closed mind set interfere with your key strokes. I take it back, based on your response, you are not loyal opposition.

No one stated the whole plan would be implemented as you infer by distorting the context and truth of the OP. It's a classic "straw man" tactic where you attempt to redefine your oppostion's point to support your own agenda. Further, Cain doesn't run a pizza parlor as you infer. He is the CEO of a corporation that has 622 locations in 39 states. That is a little different then your biased representation to the contrary. He is former deputy chairman and chairman of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy (Wikipedia). Cain is also a prominent newspaper columnist. He isn't the "blowhard" in this thread.

I hope your nasty characterizations of Herman Cain are not indicative of more sinister motivation. For the moment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. Have a nice day.

Cain's 9-9-9-plan has many answers and depends on your present tax situation. Some will view it as a problem because it contains both an income tax and and national sales tax simultaneously and will have the potential to become the 29-29-29 Plan following the European welfare state. Others will complain that the 9% consumption tax unfair for anyone with after tax savings because it re-taxes money that has already been taxed; especially seniors whose nest eggs aren't earning and interest and/or being dramtically reduced by inflation and down markets. In effect it means retirees in this situation will be subsidizing everyone else; i.e a retroactive raise to a previous tax brackets by 9% more.

Forget all that because what we have here is a concept just like the Fiar Tax and the Value Tax both of which have inrinsic problems and can create unintended consequences for certain tax payers.

Irrespective of what plan people settle on thischange (reaction) will create a change (counter reaction) meaning spending. I have not met a governement employee who wasn't a spendthrift, especially with taxpayers money.

So when the Cain's of the world start their populist talk of reducing your tax burden you have to ask at what costs and for how long before government spendthrifts tell you more is needed.

IMHO our tax system is so complex and so entangled in our economic system the truth is any attempt to change it has to be tken in gradual steps lest we throw out the baby with the bath water.

You have to start the discussion and the fight somewhere. Are you one of those who say "Aww, nobody's gonna chang no matter what I think, so I'm not gonna even try". Did that philosophy ever do you much good elsewhere.

I applaud a man who has the nerve and vision to at least attempt to persuade people to buck the status quo, and envision that there can be a better way to do things.

I don't know how far Mr. Cain is going to get with his vision and his dream of transforming the way we think of the tax system, but anything that simplifies and streamlines the process has to be a good thing. For one, dismantling the onerous IRS into nothing more than an accounting firm that only has to add the simple numbers up is a pleasant thought.

I can only respond that his plan is in phases so as to make changes gradually.

Ok, I'd heard about the 9% income tax and 9% naitonal sales tax - what's the other '9' for?

Corporate Tax.
 

9% corporate tax.