(Image Source: Wikimedia Commons/ Gage Skidmore)

 

BY EVAN BUSH

 

It’s not the price of a pizza. GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan is simple -- but that has analysts asking -- is it too simple to work?

 

First to Cain himself -- who laid out the plan during the Fox News/Google debate in September:

 

CAIN: “It starts with, throw out the current tax code and pass the 9 percent business flat tax, the 9 percent personal income tax, the 9 percent national sales tax.”

 

Essentially, Cain would restructure the tax code to focus on consumption. But critics say it won’t raise enough money to be revenue neutral as Cain says it would be. Others say the tax burden will fall disproportionately on those with lower incomes.

 

In the most recent debate. Bloomberg confronted the candidate with its analysis.

 

BLOOMBERG: “Last year the US collected 2.2 trillion in tax revenue, but Bloomberg Government has run the numbers and your plan would have raised no more than $2 trillion.”

CAIN: “The problem with that analysis is that it is incorrect.”

 

Other organizations have different estimates. Another fact-checking outfit -- Politifact says there are a lot of numbers floating out there, but there are enough variables that Cain’s plan is something of a wildcard. So how much revenue would Cain’s plan generate?

 

“It's hard to say. For instance, Cain's corporate income tax is based on gross income of businesses less investments, purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders. But gross income figures are not always available, nor would be the value of the credits in Cain's system. We also don't know how spending habits might change if a national sales tax was enacted.”

 

On to the second point of contention -- who bears the brunt of the tax burden -- and how does it compare to the current model? Analysts say the language Cain uses to describe the plan yields clues.

 

CAIN: “Now what 999 does -- it expands the base. When you expand the base, we can arrive at the lowest possible rate -- you’ve got 999.”

 

The subtext here -- lower income people who don’t currently pay income taxes -- will start paying in. Some analysts are saying the tax is regressive, or affects the lower-income disproportionately. The Christian Science Monitor weighs in.

 

“Central to the debate is that middle- and lower-income Americans spend almost all of their income, meaning the sales tax would constitute a higher percentage of their income... The richest Americans, meanwhile, would see a big decline in their income-tax rate.”

 

But a Wall Street Journal reporter rather bullish on the plan says that’s not the whole story -- that Cain’s plan would take steps to avoid putting too much burden on the lower income.

 

“Herman’s plan has a hold harmless provision for low-income people. It’s kind of a tax credit to keep people below the poverty line from really being hit by these taxes. And yet, Herman himself is not talking about this at all. It may just not be a popular product for primary voters.”

 

In fact, Cain’s campaign website cryptically addresses this issue -- without much detail. But he clarified a bit in the Wall Street Journal.

 

“My plan promotes enterprise zones, also known as ‘empowerment zones.’ Coupled with tax reform and monetary stabilization, empowerment zones would revitalize inner cities by providing tax credits to businesses that hire workers living and working in underprivileged areas.”

 

Analysts also question whether the plan is politically possible -- and say it won’t be easy to scrap the tax code. In short -- The Conservative Frum Forum says the plan is more of a campaign strategy than anything else.

 

“The 999 plan is a slogan masquerading as a plan. You could quote the tax rates from it and not have missed anything…well, anything except revenue projections, a political strategy to pass it, job creation projections or methodology.”

 

All in all, media are say the thing least fuzzy about Cain’s 999 plan -- that it’ll be a hot topic on the campaign trail -- the International Business Times reports it was mentioned 85 times during the last debate.