100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: fact check of "9-9-9" plan | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Thu 10/13/11 11:00 AM
|
|
From the Washington Post. Presented without comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-misleading-pitch-for-the-999-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAHszPgL_blog.html “9-9-9 will pass, and it is not the price of pizza because, it has been well-studied and well-developed… The problem with that analysis [that it will not raise enough revenue] is that it is incorrect. The reason it's incorrect is because they start with assumptions that we don't make. Remember, 9- 9-9 plan throws out the current tax code. ... Now, what 9-9-9 does, it expands the base. When you expand the base, we can arrive at the lowest possible rate, which is 9-9-9.” — Herman Cain, Washington Post-Bloomberg debate, October 11, 2011 A family of four making $50,000 a year “are still going to have some money left over.” — Cain, on MSNBC, October 12, 2011 It almost sounds like something out of the movie “Dave,” in which the accidental president enlists his accountant friend, Murray Blum, to help him figure out the federal budget. During Tuesday’s Washington Post-Bloomberg debate, Herman Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, named Rich Lowrie of Cleveland as “my lead economist” who helped develop Cain’s signature “9-9-9” plan for overhauling the federal tax system. “He is an economist, and he has worked in the business of wealth creation most of his career,” Cain said. Actually, according to Lowrie’s Linked-In profile, he has a bachelor’s degree in accountancy from Case Western Reserve University, not economics. Lowrie, in an e-mail, said he did not consider himself an economist, just “senior economic advisor” to the Cain campaign. Donor information maintained by Opensecrets.org shows he has donated $1,500 to Cain in 2010 and 2011, but also contributed $2,300 to Mitt Romney in his first run for the presidency in 2007. Okay, so Cain may have exaggerated the qualifications of his economic guru. But he has forcefully defended his ‘9-9-9’ plan, both during Tuesday night’s debate and on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” on Wednesday. Many readers have asked us to examine the plan and explain it, so let’s take it for a test drive. The Facts The “9-9-9” label is actually a bit of misnomer. Cain would toss out much of the current federal tax code and replace it, eventually and only temporarily, with three taxes — a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent corporate tax and a 9 percent federal sales tax. On paper, the first two look like cuts, because payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (now nearly 15 percent, including corporate contributions) would be repealed. The sales tax would be new, on top of existing state sales taxes. But note that we said the “9-9-9” would happen eventually — and then only temporarily. That’s because it is only the second step of a planned three-step process. The first step would cut individual and corporate tax rates to a top 25 percent rate (down from a current high of 35 percent). Then the final step would replace all of the taxes — even the 9s — with a national sales tax, known by proponents as a “Fair Tax.” (As denizens of Washington, we find this three-step process to be highly dubious. It takes years, even decades, to fundamentally overhaul the tax code. Herman Cain is going to do this three times in his presidency? But we digress.) Much attention has focused on whether Cain’s plan, in its 9-9-9 stage, would raise as much revenue as the current tax system. Bloomberg News had calculated it would collect about $2 trillion, thus falling short by about $200 billion a year. But Lowrie sent Bloomberg an analysis on Wednesday that asserted “9-9-9” would actually collect slightly more — $2.3 trillion. We think the revenue question is beside the point. Anyone can turn the dials in their computer models to generate the assumptions they want. Michael Linden of the left-leaning Center for American Progress, for instance, estimates the plan would generate just $1.3 trillion. The biggest difference between the two estimates is that Linden thinks the 9 percent corporate tax would yield $112 billion a year, and Cain says he would get $862 billion — a gap that simply demonstrates how a few different assumptions can generate extremely different results. Cain’s proposal is so radical that it makes more sense to examine the potential impact on taxpayers. A key part of Cain’s pitch for the plan during the debate was this: “When you expand the base, we can arrive at the lowest possible rate, which is 9-9-9.” “Expand the base” really means that more taxpayers will pay taxes under his plan. Right now, nearly half of taxpayers don’t pay income taxes, but they do pay their share of payroll taxes, which amounts to 7.65 percent of wage income (though much of it is capped at $107,000). Cain would also eliminate the earned-income tax credit, which is intended to lift working Americans out of poverty. Many of these workers currently receive tax refunds. On top of that, Cain would introduce the new sales tax, which would affect lower and moderate-income people who spend most of their income on purchases, not savings and investments. Depending on how you do the math, people now paying zero or negative taxes might be faced with a 27 percent tax on income. In other words, while on paper Cain is promising a tax cut, in reality tens of millions of lower-income Americans would face tax increases. People in high tax brackets — 28 percent and higher — would likely see big tax cuts. (As part of his plan, Cain would also eliminate estate taxes and capital gains taxes, which, again, mostly affect higher-income people with stock and real estate investments.) There have been several interesting analyses done on the “9-9-9” plan. Edward D. Kleinbard of the University of Southern California School of Law identifies several unusual quirks, including a “disguised one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth — no doubt much to the surprise of Mr. Cain and his followers.” Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, says that “contrary to casual impressions, the Plan could be expected to raise substantial amounts of revenue, but does so largely by skewing downwards the distribution of tax burdens when compared to current law.” Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official who now calls himself an independent, also offered a critical examination this week on the New York Times Economix blog. He (as did Kleinbard) noted that the corporate tax allows for no deduction for wages, which he said “is likely to raise the cost of employing workers, even with abolition of the employers’ share of the payroll tax.” Cain, in his television appearances, glosses over such details. “The fact that we are taking out embedded taxes that are built into all of the goods and services in this country, prices will not go up,” he asserted on MSNBC. “They will not go up.” He then gave an example of a family of four earning $50,000. “Today, under the current system, they will pay over $10,000 in taxes assuming standard deductions and standard exemptions. I've gone through the math, $10,000. Now, with 9-9-9, they're going to pay that 9 percent personal — that 9 percent tax on their income. So that's only $4,500. They still have $5,500 left over to apply to this sales tax piece. …They are still going to have money left over.” We’re not sure how Cain calculates that this family now pays $10,000 in taxes, but the reliable Tax Foundation calculator comes up with a much more reasonable figure: a total tax bill of $3,515 — $690 in federal income taxes and $2,825 in payroll taxes. (The family gets a big income-tax savings from the child tax credit, which Cain would eliminate.) So, in other words, under Cain’s plan, this family would instantly pay $1,000 more in income taxes. They would also pay additional sales taxes, probably more than $3,000, on their purchases. It’s unclear how the business tax would affect the family’s tax bill but it appears this theoretical family would get no tax cut but instead a 100 percent tax increase. (The picture changes somewhat if you assume that all the employer-paid payroll taxes automatically would revert to the employee. We’re not sure that’s a good bet given the design of Cain’s business tax, but pro-Cain advocates make that assumption with their own tax calculator. But even under this scenario, the family appears stuck with at least a $2,000 tax increase.) We take no position on whether it is good or bad to make the tax code less progressive. Perhaps in response to questions, Cain appears to still be tinkering with the plan. In Concord, N.H., he said on Wednesday that, among other changes, he would preserve the deduction for charitable donations and would exempt any used goods, including previously owned homes and cars, from the new 9 percent sales tax. The Pinocchio Test We can excuse Cain inflating his adviser’s resume, but his campaign needs to do more to address the fuzzy math behind his tax plan. (We asked the campaign for a copy of Lowrie’s analysis but did not receive a response.) Give Cain credit for thinking boldly, but he’s not talking clearly. As far as we can tell from the limited information Cain has provided, the plan he touts as a big tax cut would actually increase taxes on most Americans. Just like it would be wrong to claim pizza is a low-calorie meal, Cain’s description of the plan’s impact on working Americans is highly misleading. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Washington Post. Presented without comment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/herman-cains-misleading-pitch-for-the-999-plan/2011/10/12/gIQAHszPgL_blog.html “9-9-9 will pass, and it is not the price of pizza because, it has been well-studied and well-developed… The problem with that analysis [that it will not raise enough revenue] is that it is incorrect. The reason it's incorrect is because they start with assumptions that we don't make. Remember, 9- 9-9 plan throws out the current tax code. ... Now, what 9-9-9 does, it expands the base. When you expand the base, we can arrive at the lowest possible rate, which is 9-9-9.” — Herman Cain, Washington Post-Bloomberg debate, October 11, 2011 A family of four making $50,000 a year “are still going to have some money left over.” — Cain, on MSNBC, October 12, 2011 It almost sounds like something out of the movie “Dave,” in which the accidental president enlists his accountant friend, Murray Blum, to help him figure out the federal budget. During Tuesday’s Washington Post-Bloomberg debate, Herman Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, named Rich Lowrie of Cleveland as “my lead economist” who helped develop Cain’s signature “9-9-9” plan for overhauling the federal tax system. “He is an economist, and he has worked in the business of wealth creation most of his career,” Cain said. Actually, according to Lowrie’s Linked-In profile, he has a bachelor’s degree in accountancy from Case Western Reserve University, not economics. Lowrie, in an e-mail, said he did not consider himself an economist, just “senior economic advisor” to the Cain campaign. Donor information maintained by Opensecrets.org shows he has donated $1,500 to Cain in 2010 and 2011, but also contributed $2,300 to Mitt Romney in his first run for the presidency in 2007. Okay, so Cain may have exaggerated the qualifications of his economic guru. But he has forcefully defended his ‘9-9-9’ plan, both during Tuesday night’s debate and on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” on Wednesday. Many readers have asked us to examine the plan and explain it, so let’s take it for a test drive. The Facts The “9-9-9” label is actually a bit of misnomer. Cain would toss out much of the current federal tax code and replace it, eventually and only temporarily, with three taxes — a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent corporate tax and a 9 percent federal sales tax. On paper, the first two look like cuts, because payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare (now nearly 15 percent, including corporate contributions) would be repealed. The sales tax would be new, on top of existing state sales taxes. But note that we said the “9-9-9” would happen eventually — and then only temporarily. That’s because it is only the second step of a planned three-step process. The first step would cut individual and corporate tax rates to a top 25 percent rate (down from a current high of 35 percent). Then the final step would replace all of the taxes — even the 9s — with a national sales tax, known by proponents as a “Fair Tax.” (As denizens of Washington, we find this three-step process to be highly dubious. It takes years, even decades, to fundamentally overhaul the tax code. Herman Cain is going to do this three times in his presidency? But we digress.) Much attention has focused on whether Cain’s plan, in its 9-9-9 stage, would raise as much revenue as the current tax system. Bloomberg News had calculated it would collect about $2 trillion, thus falling short by about $200 billion a year. But Lowrie sent Bloomberg an analysis on Wednesday that asserted “9-9-9” would actually collect slightly more — $2.3 trillion. We think the revenue question is beside the point. Anyone can turn the dials in their computer models to generate the assumptions they want. Michael Linden of the left-leaning Center for American Progress, for instance, estimates the plan would generate just $1.3 trillion. The biggest difference between the two estimates is that Linden thinks the 9 percent corporate tax would yield $112 billion a year, and Cain says he would get $862 billion — a gap that simply demonstrates how a few different assumptions can generate extremely different results. Cain’s proposal is so radical that it makes more sense to examine the potential impact on taxpayers. A key part of Cain’s pitch for the plan during the debate was this: “When you expand the base, we can arrive at the lowest possible rate, which is 9-9-9.” “Expand the base” really means that more taxpayers will pay taxes under his plan. Right now, nearly half of taxpayers don’t pay income taxes, but they do pay their share of payroll taxes, which amounts to 7.65 percent of wage income (though much of it is capped at $107,000). Cain would also eliminate the earned-income tax credit, which is intended to lift working Americans out of poverty. Many of these workers currently receive tax refunds. On top of that, Cain would introduce the new sales tax, which would affect lower and moderate-income people who spend most of their income on purchases, not savings and investments. Depending on how you do the math, people now paying zero or negative taxes might be faced with a 27 percent tax on income. In other words, while on paper Cain is promising a tax cut, in reality tens of millions of lower-income Americans would face tax increases. People in high tax brackets — 28 percent and higher — would likely see big tax cuts. (As part of his plan, Cain would also eliminate estate taxes and capital gains taxes, which, again, mostly affect higher-income people with stock and real estate investments.) There have been several interesting analyses done on the “9-9-9” plan. Edward D. Kleinbard of the University of Southern California School of Law identifies several unusual quirks, including a “disguised one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth — no doubt much to the surprise of Mr. Cain and his followers.” Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, says that “contrary to casual impressions, the Plan could be expected to raise substantial amounts of revenue, but does so largely by skewing downwards the distribution of tax burdens when compared to current law.” Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration official who now calls himself an independent, also offered a critical examination this week on the New York Times Economix blog. He (as did Kleinbard) noted that the corporate tax allows for no deduction for wages, which he said “is likely to raise the cost of employing workers, even with abolition of the employers’ share of the payroll tax.” Cain, in his television appearances, glosses over such details. “The fact that we are taking out embedded taxes that are built into all of the goods and services in this country, prices will not go up,” he asserted on MSNBC. “They will not go up.” He then gave an example of a family of four earning $50,000. “Today, under the current system, they will pay over $10,000 in taxes assuming standard deductions and standard exemptions. I've gone through the math, $10,000. Now, with 9-9-9, they're going to pay that 9 percent personal — that 9 percent tax on their income. So that's only $4,500. They still have $5,500 left over to apply to this sales tax piece. …They are still going to have money left over.” We’re not sure how Cain calculates that this family now pays $10,000 in taxes, but the reliable Tax Foundation calculator comes up with a much more reasonable figure: a total tax bill of $3,515 — $690 in federal income taxes and $2,825 in payroll taxes. (The family gets a big income-tax savings from the child tax credit, which Cain would eliminate.) So, in other words, under Cain’s plan, this family would instantly pay $1,000 more in income taxes. They would also pay additional sales taxes, probably more than $3,000, on their purchases. It’s unclear how the business tax would affect the family’s tax bill but it appears this theoretical family would get no tax cut but instead a 100 percent tax increase. (The picture changes somewhat if you assume that all the employer-paid payroll taxes automatically would revert to the employee. We’re not sure that’s a good bet given the design of Cain’s business tax, but pro-Cain advocates make that assumption with their own tax calculator. But even under this scenario, the family appears stuck with at least a $2,000 tax increase.) We take no position on whether it is good or bad to make the tax code less progressive. Perhaps in response to questions, Cain appears to still be tinkering with the plan. In Concord, N.H., he said on Wednesday that, among other changes, he would preserve the deduction for charitable donations and would exempt any used goods, including previously owned homes and cars, from the new 9 percent sales tax. The Pinocchio Test We can excuse Cain inflating his adviser’s resume, but his campaign needs to do more to address the fuzzy math behind his tax plan. (We asked the campaign for a copy of Lowrie’s analysis but did not receive a response.) Give Cain credit for thinking boldly, but he’s not talking clearly. As far as we can tell from the limited information Cain has provided, the plan he touts as a big tax cut would actually increase taxes on most Americans. Just like it would be wrong to claim pizza is a low-calorie meal, Cain’s description of the plan’s impact on working Americans is highly misleading. I am thinking at some point someone will ask Marc Faber or Peter Schiff about it and I will wait to hear what they say before I believe the Keynesians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am thinking at some point someone will ask Marc Faber or Peter Schiff about it and I will wait to hear what they say before I believe the Keynesians. Good idea!  Austrian economics FTW!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAAAAAAN
THE WAY I SEE IT...NO REPUBLICAN NOR TEA PARTY CANDIDATE SHOULD END UP IN THE WHITE HOUSE...THEY DON'T DESERVE THAT CHANCE TOO... LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA......!!!      OBAMA 2012 YES WE CAN & YES WE WILL !!!    Angel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan issimple: you'll simply pay more
Jim Young / Reuters "If the public understands it, they will support it and demand it. That is going to be thedifference. It is not a complicated piece of legislation," Herman Cainsays of his "9-9-9" tax plan. By John W. Schoen, Senior Producer When it comes to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain's proposed 9-9-9 tax plan, there’s one thing all sides agree on: it’s very simple If you're a corporation, own a small business or count yourself among the richest Americans, you'll simply love it. If not, you'd simply pay a lot more in taxes. Everyone hates the current tax code. A Congressional supercommittee is attacking the mess as part of a broad proposal to balance the federal budget. President Barack Obama wants to pay for his jobs stimulus package by raising taxeson the wealthiest households. Corporations are agitating for a “tax holiday” for over a $1 trillion in profits stashed overseas to avoid the IRSback home. Now Cain, who has recently surged to the front of the pack of GOP presidential contenders, is drawing attention to aradical idea. Rather thanslog through the political morass of overhauling the existing system, just scrap it entirely. No more deductions, exemptions, incentives and tax loss carry forwards In its place, Cain wants the government to pay its bills with three sources of revenues heldto single-digit rates: a 9 percent tax on all consumer purchases, a 9 percent “business” tax and a 9 percent income tax. Cain claims the plan is already generating popular support among voters, which will make it much easier to implement in the political quagmire that has numerous tax reform proposals. Send us your story ideas Follow me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter “I can be walking through the airport going through security and a TSA agent will say, ‘Hello Mr. Cain: 9-9-9,'” Cain recently told CNBC. “If the public understands it, they will support it and demand it. That is going to be thedifference. It is not a complicated piece of legislation.” But the odds are much higher that, when the public understands it, the vast majority of taxpayers will be horrified to realize they face a huge tax increase.That assessment comes from Bruce Bartlett, a senior official in the Reagan and George H.W.Bush administrations, who described the plan as a “distributional monstrosity.” “The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase” Bartlett recently wrote in the New York Times . “Even allowing for the poorly thought-through promises routinely madeon the campaign trail, Mr. Cain’s tax plan standsout as exceptionally ill conceived." The reason the plan would hit poor people harder than the wealthy is also simple. The current tax code provides a series of deductions, credits and exemptions to ease the tax burden on all households, but they have a greater positive impact those at the bottom of the income ladder. As a result, some 38 percent of U.S. households pay little or no taxes . They would now suddenly be hit with what amounts to a tax bill that represents 27 percent of their income, according to USClaw professor Edward Kleinbard, who published a paper this week calling the 9-9-9 plan “a terrific example of fiscal hocus pocus.” advertisement “It is presented as a low-tax panacea, but it actually would raise the tax bills of many Americans very substantially,” he said. Though he's gained political momentum by hammering away at the plan's simplicity, Cain hashad a harder time explaining how the plan would benefit the average household. In a recent appearance on MSNBC’s The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd , Cain explained that a family with an annual income of$50,000 would come out ahead under the 9-9-9 scheme. But as my NBC News colleague Domenico Montanaro found upon closer examination, the numbers Cain offered just don't add up . The plan would certainlybenefit some households. Owners of small businesses would be among the biggest winners, said Kleinbard, because they could pay themselves with dividends (which would no longer be taxed) instead of wages. That would effectively reducetheir tax rate to about 18 percent. Kleinbard also found that the plan would have some significant unintended consequences, including what amounts to a phantom tax on existing savings. For example, if you bought a new car with money you’d stashed in a savings account, accumulated from earnings, investment gains or interest or dividends that you’ve already paid taxes on, you’d now have to pay yet another 9 percent on the new car. That phantom tax, whichwould apply to any purchase made with existing wealth, “may come as a big surprise toMr. Cain and his followers.” Cain and advisors who have reviewed the plan insist that it would collect enough money toreplace the current tax code and not add to the federal budget deficit. But until Cain presents a more detailed proposal, those estimates are all but impossible to verify. That uncertainty has drawn fire from the political right. Many support the idea of a flatter, more regressive tax than the current system But they worry that Cain‘s plan could make it easier for the government to raise revenues. “The challenge is creating a (business tax) and a sales tax and keeping the income tax -- having three taxes all of which can grow,” Grover Norquist, head ofAmericans for Tax Reform, told MSNBC. “It’s like having three needles in your arm taking blood out. It’s much more dangerous than just one.” Critics of Cain’s plan argue that he’s hoping that widespread dissatisfaction with the current system will prompt voters to overlook the plan’s numerous pitfalls. NYU law professor DanielShaviro thinks part of the popular appeal of Cain’s plan is that it appears to hold tax ratesto single digits — even though the cumulative tax paid by most households would amount to 27 percent. Borrowing from Cain, Shaviro offers and even simpler solution to makeexisting tax code much more palatable “Replace the 35 percent annual income tax with a 3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3monthly tax on annual income,” he recently wrote on his blog. “Afterall, who's counting if the12 monthly taxes actually add up to 36 percent annually?” Do you favor Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan? Yes, it's a simple and fair alternative No, it's just a giveawayto the rich Won't know until more details are presented Optional short answer (140 characters left) This feature requires a profile . Create a new profile or sign in to comment. Submit Results with 191 shortcomments Total of 23,607 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below tosort comments 21.5% Yes, it's a simple and fairalternative 5,071 votes 53.9% No, it's just a giveaway to the rich 12,716 votes 24.7% Won't know until more details are presented 5,820 votes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-9-9 tax plan: Does it make Herman Cain a Robin Hood for the rich?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
most likely,, I get the vibe he is the upper class peoples president
the rest of us wont really benefit from him at all,,,just my feeling |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul 2012!
Take money out of politics, bring the troops home, defend our borders, abolish the fed and the IRS, let the market (thereby letting consumers....we the people) set the prices with more options of free trade, cut the war machine budget (not our defense budget) and return to constitutional tariffs on goods imported and exported..... problem solved! No taxes, only tariffs on goods and service "for profit", thereby the rich carry more responsibilty to deliver better goods at a fair market value or loose out to the competition and go under. NO MORE BAILOUTS! You invest or act unwisely, you fail! Treasury prints our money, not private, uncontrolled, banking cartels, printing fiat money, unbacked by tangible assets, with debt attached to every dollar that is placed in cirrculation, the burden for their folly placed on the American people! Makes more sense and simpler than any 9-9-9 plan, rewriting any tax codes, and fair for all! Income tax is unconstitutional on wages, but not on profits for goods or services provided to the consumer with a fee attached! More money into our economy (not banker pockets), better products, less stress and more jobs! A renewed chance at the American Dream for all, not just the 1 percent! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul 2012! Take money out of politics, bring the troops home, defend our borders, abolish the fed and the IRS, let the market (thereby letting consumers....we the people) set the prices with more options of free trade, cut the war machine budget (not our defense budget) and return to constitutional tariffs on goods imported and exported..... problem solved! No taxes, only tariffs on goods and service "for profit", thereby the rich carry more responsibilty to deliver better goods at a fair market value or loose out to the competition and go under. NO MORE BAILOUTS! You invest or act unwisely, you fail! Treasury prints our money, not private, uncontrolled, banking cartels, printing fiat money, unbacked by tangible assets, with debt attached to every dollar that is placed in cirrculation, the burden for their folly placed on the American people! Makes more sense and simpler than any 9-9-9 plan, rewriting any tax codes, and fair for all! Income tax is unconstitutional on wages, but not on profits for goods or services provided to the consumer with a fee attached! More money into our economy (not banker pockets), better products, less stress and more jobs! A renewed chance at the American Dream for all, not just the 1 percent! W00T!!! Ron Paul FTW 2012!! No more bailouts for wall street and corporate cronies! End the FED! End the illegal occupations overseas! Freedom FTW!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-9-9 tax plan: Does it make Herman Cain a Robin Hood for the rich? More like a P.T. Barnum. You know the quote: "There's one born every minute....". Like the lottery, the 9-9-9 plan is a tax on people who are bad at math and seeing the whole picture. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its also 666 upside down,,,,lol
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-9-9 tax plan: Does it make Herman Cain a Robin Hood for the rich? More like a P.T. Barnum. You know the quote: "There's one born every minute....". Like the lottery, the 9-9-9 plan is a tax on people who are bad at math and seeing the whole picture. -Kerry O.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its also 666 upside down,,,,lol  
|
|
|
|
|
