NOPE, no reference to time frame, and certainly no reference to ONE year.
Quit just making BS up.
Cain said just last night that, if elected, his plan would balance the budget within one year.
Anyway, what is the hang-up with the time frame? If the plan has positive economic effects, they ought to become apparent relatively quickly once it's in force, no? Why is one year unreasonable there, and what difference would it make to any point here if it takes two or whatever?
No source for that assertion either.
And no dispute of that assertion coming from you, either. So, no need to cite anything.
Indeed: The Tax Policy Center estimates that, if fully phased in, the plan would raise about $2.55 trillion of revenues at 2013 levels of income and consumption, virtually the same amount that would be collected if current tax policy were in place that year
And they aren't claiming some big bump in GDP or Jobs either.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/Cain-9-9-9-plan.cfm
The fact that some non-partisan group did its own estimates and that they disagree with Cain's, doesn't imply that Cain didn't make those claims. I just quoted you the text off of Cain's website where he claims a big jump in GDP and employment. You, in turn, quoted exactly that text right back at me in your reply. It is not in dispute.
The fact that some non-partisan group contends that said claims are bullshit goes exactly to my point, which is that Cain's claims are a bunch of self-serving bullshit.
Replacing much of our complex tax code with a simple plan is not loony.
What I said, was that Cain's 999 plan was loony. Why are you going to such lengths to beat up these transparent strawmen? It doesn't make you look like you're winning. It makes you look like an idiot who can't even follow the conversation.
Although, in point of fact, it is also lunacy to think that one can simplify the current tax code to such an extreme without creating many more, bigger problems than you'd solve.
I don't think this is the right plan but the general CONCEPT of doing so makes great sense.
Makes sense as a political talking point, maybe, but it doesn't make economic or policy sense. Modern society, and the modern economy, are complex. It is reasonable to expect that an efficient, effective tax code would be relatively complex as well. These are complex issues at stake - the premise that they can all be nicely tied up with some terse bit of policy is nothing more than an assertion of a fundamentalist ideological outlook.
No we haven't.
The tax system continues to get worse year after year.
The tax code is not even comprehensible.
So the measure of how "good" or "bad" the tax code is, is... its complexity? Nothing else?
I might not agree with his exact numbers and some other aspects like no exemptions, zero CGs tax etc which as I've said makes this tax appear to be quite regressive, but conceptually, simplifing the system is something I feel we really need to do.
Why? Shouldn't the question of complexity necessarily be secondary to first-order concerns like revenue, fairness, impact on various incentives, etc.?
Of course, you agree - or you wouldn't be asserting that Cain's very simple proposal is worse than the status quo.