CATO Institute: Understanding the 9-9-9 Plan
I have a lot of respect for Herman Cain, but I have several concerns about his 9-9-9 plan. The first being it is a temporary stop on his way to a larger overhaul of the U.S. Tax System. I am also concerned that we will be putting too much trust into hands of a Congress that has shown a lack of discipline and legitimate concern for the fiscal future of the United States.
Look Before You Leap on Cain’s 9-9-9 Tax Plan
Posted By Daniel J. Mitchell , General,Government and Politics,Tax and Budget Policy |
I like the overall approach of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan. As I recently wrote [1], it focuses on lower tax rates, elimination of double taxation, and repeal of corrupt and inefficient loopholes.
But I included a very important caveat. The intermediate stage of his three-step plan would enable politicians to impose both an income tax and a national sales tax. I wrote in my earlier post that I had faith in Herman Cain’s motives, but I was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of letting the crowd in Washington have an extra source of revenue [2].
After all, Europe’s welfare states began their march to fiscal collapse and economic stagnation after they added a version of a national sales tax [3] on top of their pre-existing income taxes.
But it seems that I was too nice in my analysis of Mr. Cain’s plan. Josh Barro [4] and Bruce Bartlett [5] are both claiming that the business portion of Cain’s 9-9-9 is a value-added tax (VAT) rather than a corporate income tax.
In other words, instead of being a 9 percent flat tax-9 percent sales tax-9 percent corporate tax, Cain’s plan is a 9 percent flat tax-9 percent sales tax-9 percent VAT.
Let’s elaborate. The business portion of Cain’s plan apparently does not allow employers to deduct wages and salaries, which means — for all intents and purposes — that they would levy a 9 percent withholding tax on employee compensation. And that would be in addition to the 9 percent they presumably would withhold for the flat tax portion of Cain’s plan.
Employers use withholding in the current system, of course, but at least taxpayers are given credit for all that withheld tax when filling out their 1040 tax forms. Under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, however, employees would only get credit for monies withheld for the flat tax.
In other words, there are two income taxes in Cain’s plan — the 9 percent flat tax and the hidden 9 percent income tax that is part of the VAT (this hidden income tax on wages and salaries, by the way, is a defining feature of a VAT).
This doesn’t make Cain’s plan bad from a theoretical perspective. The underlying principles are still sound — low tax rates, no double taxation, and no loopholes.
But if I was uneasy when I thought that the 9-9-9 plan added a sales tax on top of the income tax, then I am super-duper-double-secret-probation uneasy about adding a sales tax and a VAT on top of the income tax.
Here’s my video on the VAT, which will help you realize why this pernicious tax would be a big mistake.
Again, this doesn’t make Cain wrong if we’re grading based on economics or philosophy. My anxiety is a matter of real-world political analysis. I don’t trust politicians with new sources of revenue. Whether we give them big new sources of revenue [6] or small new sources of revenue [7], they will always figure out ways of pushing up the tax rates so they can waste more money trying to buy votes.
Article printed from Cato @ Liberty: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org
URL to article: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/look-before-you-leap-on-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/
URLs in this post:
[1] I recently wrote: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-is-great-in-theory-but/
[2] extremely uncomfortable with the idea of letting the crowd in Washington have an extra source of revenue: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/why-i-prefer-the-flat-tax-over-the-fair-tax/
[3] they added a version of a national sales tax: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/you-should-support-a-value-added-tax-if-you-want-bigger-government-and-more-debt/
[4] Josh Barro: http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/279761/herman-cains-9-9-9-plan-has-vat-plus-sales-tax-josh-barro#.TpR1zMYN3as.twitter
[5] Bruce Bartlett: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/
[6] big new sources of revenue: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/more-arguments-against-a-value-added-tax/
[7] small new sources of revenue: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/what-happens-when-politicians-get-a-new-source-of-revenue/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2009 Cato-at-liberty.
How About 15-15-15?
Presidential candidate Herman Cain has made a splash with his 9-9-9 tax reform plan. I love his 9 percent income tax, but the skunk at the tax reform picnic is his 9 percent retail sales tax. Mr. Cain is an articulate advocate of free enterprise and I wish him well in the contest, but he should ditch the sales tax.
Adding a retail sales tax to the federal government’s powerful tax armada would be a terrible idea from a small-government perspective. Democrats are desperate to find ways to fund soaring entitlement costs, so it’s dangerous to give them conservative political cover to add a new federal funding source.
Cain’s 9 percent business tax is also a problem. It is similar to a value-added tax (VAT) because it would disallow a business deduction for wages, which would make the base much broader than the corporate income tax base. And like a VAT, Cain’s business tax would apparently be imposed on all businesses, not just those currently paying the corporate income tax.
Chris Edwards is editor of Cato Institute’s Downsizing Government.org.
The result would be that American businesses would be collecting a large tax on workers’ wages — but workers wouldn’t see this major government grab. One caveat is that the Cain business tax would allow a deduction for dividends paid, which would narrow the base compared to the standard VAT.
In sum, two of Cain’s three 9′s are bad ideas. His advocacy of lower marginal rates and reduced taxes on savings and investment are great, but he should drop the 9-9-9 plan.
Instead, Cain and other candidates should consider a 15-15-15 plan. At first blush, that doesn’t sound very appealing because the rates are higher than Cain’s. But the business tax base would be much smaller than Cain’s, and the plan would make existing revenue sources more visible and efficient. Here’s the 15-15-15 plan:
- 15 Percent Payroll Tax. Cain would abolish the current 15.3 percent payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare. That’s odd because Cain — to his credit — is proposing a Chilean-style Social Security system with personal accounts. I’d keep the current payroll tax, but move to a Chilean-style system by allowing workers to put 6 percentage points or more of the tax into a personal account. That would feel like a tax cut for workers because they would retain ownership of the money. I would also require that all 15.3 percent of the tax be listed on employee pay stubs so that the burden is highly visible. Currently, workers only see half of the payroll tax, and thus might be unaware of the high cost of these retirement programs.
- 15 Percent Personal Income Tax. Like Cain, I’d get rid of just about all deductions and other breaks under the income tax, except pro-savings features such as the 401(k) rules. It’s also reasonable to retain a substantial basic exemption for low-income filers, as under the Dick Armey/Steve Forbes “flat tax” plans. The Armey/Forbes plans had rates in the range of 17 to 20 percent, but they only taxed labor income at the individual level, not capital income. Technically, that is the right way to go under a flat tax, but as a bow to today’s political realities, we might want to tax wages, dividends, interest and capital gains all at 15 percent.
- 15 Percent Corporate Income Tax. We should cut the 35 percent corporate income tax rate to 15 percent. People say we should trade a rate cut for loophole closing, but loophole closing is not worth the effort. Corporate loopholes are far smaller than loopholes in the individual code, and trying to scrap them just creates a blockade of business opposition to reform. Also, if we dropped the rate to 15 percent, the base would automatically broaden as businesses reduced their tax avoidance and evasion. Corporate profits parked offshore would flood back into the United States, and capital investment would get a huge boost. In the long-run, policymakers should consider switching to the simpler cash-flow business base under the Armey/Forbes flat tax, but if we cut the rate to 15 percent, the distortions caused by the current base would be greatly reduced anyway.
How much revenue would 15-15-15 raise? You could probably make it revenue-neutral by adjusting the basic exemption amount under the individual income tax. Dick Armey’s flat tax exemption was huge at about $35,000 for a family of four. A lower exemption amount makes more sense, but this is a variable that could be fine-tuned.
Of course, tax reform would be much easier if it created an overall tax cut. And that would be much easier to achieve if Congress cut spending. So I’d encourage Mr. Cain and the other candidates to roll up their sleeves and give us their detailed spending-cut plans. As a modest first step, how about a 9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9 plan to slice 9 percent off the budget of every federal agency?
Recent Comments