How desperate are the American people? Are they sufficiently desperate to see change that might benefit them that they are willing to scrap a progressive tax system in which, theoretically, the less income you earn the less you are taxed; and conversely, the more income you earn, the more you are taxed on that income (theoretically)?
Will Americans gamble that a plan which will lighten the tax load on those who currently earn the most money each year, and purports to be revenue neutral, will somehow not affect middle income and low wage earners in a fashion that will make those tax burdens somewhat heavier?
We may never get to find out of course, that is, especially if former Godfather’s Pizza chief executive Herman Cain is not the eventual Republican nominee for President. However, the fact that he has now risen to the top of the most current NBC/Wall Street Journal Public Opinion polls of GOP presidential contenders, after having made his 9-9-9 proposal the centerpiece of his domestic policy, is evidence that there is currently a segment of the American population, far in excess of the top 1% of income earners, who appear willing to give it a chance—for some reason.
Clearly, the 9% federal sales tax on consumer goods and the 9% income tax would be a sizeable tax increase on the lowest income Americans who, under the current system, may not make enough money to be subject to federal income taxation. Just as clearly, Cain’s 9% income tax rate would represent a significant decrease in taxes for the highest income earners; who would have their income tax rate reduced from the current rate of 35%.
Not accounting for projected economic growth estimates, (the operative words being “projected” and “estimates”) The Washington Times calculates that Cain’s program would generate $1.768 trillion to the government—whereas the current system generated $2.16 trillion in revenue last year. This would represent a short-fall on top of a short-fall, in terms of what would be needed versus what is/was needed, in order to balance the federal budget; not to mention class warfare.
Whenever the President Obama has proposed to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on those earning in excess of $250,000 a year—or when he agreed recently to the proposed 5.6% surcharge on incomes in excess of $1,000,000 a year to pay for his recent $447 billion jobs bill—he has invariably been accused of engaging the nation in class warfare.
Logically, if proposing to increase taxes on the upper income earners, while decreasing them on lower income earners (by way of lowering payroll taxes, for example) constitutes class warfare, then proposing to lower taxes on the upper income earners and corporations, while increasing taxes on the lowest income earners—via the 9% federal sales tax and 9% personal income tax—must also qualify as such.
Apparently some Americans are desperate enough to vote for unconditional class surrender.