Herman Cain

[Cie]

Ok, Ok I will ask again because all you guys love this plan so much and I am a bit confused by it.

"Lets say one of these CEO's has a deal to buy 1,000,000 shares of stock for a buck a share. The stock is worth 10 bucks a share. He sells it for $10,000,000 a $9,000,000 capital gain. Does he pay taxes on that?

Now, the sales tax...is that a national sales tax? Is that on top of the State Sales tax?"

Come on, these Execs exercise options all the time. It seems like a simple enough question.
:0corn

Sorry, I just needed another box of popcorn and a drink. opcorn2 I'm parched. Still waiting for an answer from you guiys that love this tax plan. Seems like a simple enough request.

First off, quit kidding yourself. No one in the thread said they are all in on this plan. Secondly, I was unable to find much detail on the 9 9 9 when i searched yesterday. I would assume there would be no tax burden on the exec in your scenario, but remain unsure.

My question is broader in nature than yours. I want to know what the estimated revenue is relative to o?r horrific current system. So far, I found an estimate of roughly 400 billion less revenue than current 2.1 trill.my concern lies here.

 

[Cie]

What was that giant whizzing noise that just flew over your head?

:SIB

No kidding...lol

 

[ssd]

Stevie:
As far as I know, there would be no capital gains tax on that sale revenue.

He would keep the entire $9 mil.

I find it interesting that people in this forum argue that the rich do not spend their money......and then they argue that 98% of the wealth is controlled by 2% of the population, or some such statistic. I may have the #'s wrong but my point is the same.

If the rich control all the wealth, then they are spending because things are still happening in the economy.


Much like Cie, I like his proposal and a lot of his policies and will also agree that there is not a perfect candidate for me.

The US has an archaic, outdated and punitive tax code - full of exploitable loop holes that need to be closed.

The 9-9-9 plan becomes a fair tax plan as it is implemented. I agree with the principles of the fair tax.

The FairTax Plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

Notice it is a progressive sales tax which I can only imagine means the more you spend, the higher the tax.

 

[TheNuts]

I'm not an accountant, but usually if someone is granted options like you describe, at least a portion of the value is considered income when they are granted which my understanding is would be taxed at 9%. The capital gain from selling the stock after buying would not be taxed.

Of course, this answer is worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

[THE KOD]

DrManic

Unless a new, labor-intensive industry starts up, we are stuck with the current economy.
-
Retrofitting America to use "green energy" would be extremely labor intensive.
-
Take a good, long look at who's been obstructing "green energy",...
11 hours ago | Like (9) | Report
....................................................................

hmmmm could that be the rich in America

hmmmm could that be Big oil ?

hmmmm could that be insurance co ?


nawwwwww

 

[Chadman]

My question is broader in nature than yours. I want to know what the estimated revenue is relative to o?r horrific current system. So far, I found an estimate of roughly 400 billion less revenue than current 2.1 trill.my concern lies here.

Therein lies the rub. To take such an extreme plan and submit it as the plan for our future while destroying everything we have had in place for decades is a bit concerning to me. I'm not saying I'm against it - but how can you possibly figure out what the end result would be in year one, or year whatever? What is the expectation of this plan, in real numbers?

 

[StevieD]

Thank you to those who answered my question. I did expect and got answers from those who I thought I would. You have to admit that this plan leaves many questions unanswered and much like Obamas Health Care Plan why the plan and the guy whp prropsed it should be avoided. Another guy who wants to cut revenues and keep the wars going. I don't get it.

 

[Cie]

Thank you to those who answered my question. I did expect and got answers from those who I thought I would. You have to admit that this plan leaves many questions unanswered and much like Obamas Health Care Plan why the plan and the guy whp prropsed it should be avoided. Another guy who wants to cut revenues and keep the wars going. I don't get it.

I want the wars to end immediately. 38 lost lives last month in Ghanny is 38 too many imo. I also know that both major parties are pro-war at this point, so I'm working with what we have. I like Cain better than any of the mainstream GOP candidates or Obama. I would not vote for Perry or Obama regardless of what happens in the next year. Cain has the opportunity to win my vote.

As of today, I'd vote Paul, Johnson or no one.

 

[ssd]

Take a look at Gary Johnson.

I am serious.

Look at what he wants to do with the troops.

I was on a conference call with the man and I was fortunate enough to have dinner with him (in a group) last fall.

The guy means what he says.

Here: (from his website)
AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND, now, Libya should end, our troops returned home, and the focus of our foreign policy reoriented toward the protection of U.S. citizens and interests.

With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan's challenges to the Afghan people.
Saddam Hussein has been out of power in Iraq for nearly eight years. America must leave so Iraq can have a chance to grow into a responsible member of the world community.
Without a clear goal for our military actions in Libya, fighting rages on, and the American people are footing the bill.
Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.
The U.S. must make better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Yet more links and posts that reference how much each class pays in to the system with no reference to how much the upper percentage earners make and control of the country's income. They pay a lot, yes. They make a helluva lot - never actually mentioned.

I continue to ask about this, and the proposal that will supposedly make things more fair that go after the group that makes 12% of the income in the country, and the proposal to take away whatever percentage of that, believe it was about 11% of the 12%. Again, no respondents - not that I expect any. This will simply not solve - nor come close to solving our problems, and will definitely take away money that is spent in our economy by the 50% of the population you're talking about.

I believe your question might be answered in last paragraph of AP Fact Check article --Gumby's latest grifts :lol:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-06/fact-check-obama-plan/50680722/1

AP fact check: Obama claims miss some evidence--

WASHINGTON ? In challenging Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday, President Obama argued Republicans have supported his proposals before, demanded that they explain themselves if they oppose him, and challenged others to come up with a plan of their own. The rhetoric in the president's quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust--

Last grift of many exposed in article

Obama: "We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates, in some cases, than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job."
The facts: True, "in some cases" wealthy people can exploit loopholes to make their tax rate lower than for people of middle or low income. In recent rhetoric, Obama had suggested it was commonplace for rich people to pay lower rates than others, a claim not supported by IRS statistics. But on Thursday, Obama accurately stated that it only happens sometimes.
In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the IRS. Yet that was less than 1 percent of returns with incomes above $1 million. On average, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes; those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid 9.9 percent; those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid 6.3 percent. The White House argues that when payroll taxes ? paid only on the first $106,800 of wages ? are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bottom line

-- we have some paying 24% some 9%
some 6%

---and skipping to lowest on the chain "Obama's clan"-

-we have those that pay nothing
yet get gov housing-free healthcare-free food and a disabilty income--without having paid a cent or even been a citizen--

--Rank these in order of your vision of "fair share" for us please Chad.:SIB


--and a 2nd opinion from AP/USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1

Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes

 

[Cie]

The White House argues that when payroll taxes ? paid only on the first $106,800 of wages ? are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires.


I do not support this 106K cap. Should be paid all the way up, imo.

 

[hedgehog]

The White House argues that when payroll taxes ? paid only on the first $106,800 of wages ? are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires.


I do not support this 106K cap. Should be paid all the way up, imo.

why did they pick that number 106,800 :shrug: I would like a flat tax no matter how much you make you pay same rate as everyone else...

no deductions, no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax

:0003

 

[StevieD]

why did they pick that number 106,800 :shrug: I would like a flat tax no matter how much you make you pay same rate as everyone else...

no deductions, no capital gains tax, no inheritance tax

:0003

Annnnndddddd you dont think that the big shots will be paid in stock options?

 

[ssd]

Stevie:
It can be complicated but stock options are taxed.
They are not hit with payroll, medicare, etc taxes however and if held long enough before they are exercised, are treated to long-term capital gains

 

[Cie]

Annnnndddddd you dont think that the big shots will be paid in stock options?

I am not jealous of the super rich. I owe my success to habits taught to me by family, a sound interpersonal skill set and hard/smart work. Were I super rich, I would not be apologetic.


That said, I agree that this tactic will continue to be used by wealthy execs to minimize tax burden.

 

[Cie]

Stevie:
It can be complicated but stock options are taxed.
They are not hit with payroll, medicare, etc taxes however and if held long enough before they are exercised, are treated to long-term capital gains

He's talking about in a flat tax scenario in which cap gains tax is abolished.

 

[ssd]

stock options have to be included as income.

They will be taxed.

If capital gains taxes are eliminating, there would be no tax on the potential gain from the sale of the stock but if given stock options as a benefit, they are income.

 

[StevieD]

stock options have to be included as income.

They will be taxed.

If capital gains taxes are eliminating, there would be no tax on the potential gain from the sale of the stock but if given stock options as a benefit, they are income.

But what is the income. The buck a share he can buy them for or the profit he makes. ZDon't forget, along with this plan this guy is also against regulations. So they will basicaly have a field day doing whatever they want. Much like now.

This country ran very good for very many years with the tax system we have. Now people are making a lot more money. We need to tax the ultra rich at a higher rate.

Twenty years ago people were not making money like they are now. I think the tax code stops at $250,000. We need to make levels for a million, 5 million, etc.

 

[ssd]

under the 9-9-9 plan as it is currently written, the stock options would be taxed at 9%. Any capital gains would not be taxed. Thinking ahead, since ISO's are used by corporations for tax purposes, perhaps less ISO's would be issued under the 999 plan. Just thinking out loud here.

 

[Duff Miver]

I'd like to see Cain get the Republican nomination. watching the teabaggers shit themselves because they'll have to vote for a black man would be a hoot.