Arthur Laffer: Defending the 9-9-9 Plan

Herman Cain came under fire for his 9-9-9 plan at yesterday's debate. Cain did an extremely poor job defending the plan and I think Romney did the best job of dissembling it (at the end):

This morning, Arthur Laffer, one of the architects of the 9-9-9 plan, had an editorial defense in the Wall Street Journal:

By contrast, the three tax bases for Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 plan add up to about $33 trillion. But the plan exempts from any tax people below the poverty line. Using poverty tables, this exemption reduces each tax base by roughly $2.5 trillion. Thus, Mr. Cain's 9-9-9 tax base for his business tax is $9.5 trillion, for his income tax $7.7 trillion, and for his sales tax $8.3 trillion. And there you have it! Three federal taxes at 9% that would raise roughly $2.3 trillion and replace the current income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax (employer and employee), capital gains tax and estate tax.

While this does address the math behind the plan, it doesn't address the concerns that the sales tax will be burdensome on the poor. It's a regressive tax, meaning it's going to have less impact on you the more money you make. It will affect the poor the most because their consume a higher percentage of their income.

Laffer does have the best argument for the plan though:

The whole purpose of a flat tax, à la 9-9-9, is to lower marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. With lower marginal tax rates (and boy will marginal tax rates be lower with the 9-9-9 plan), both the demand for and the supply of labor and capital will increase. Output will soar, as will jobs. Tax revenues will also increase enormously—not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates have decreased.

He believes that will stimulate upward mobility:

A static revenue-neutral tax change requires static winners and losers. And this 9-9-9 plan has made certain that even on static terms those below the poverty line will be better off—period. Once the dynamics take hold, many of those below the poverty line will find good jobs and thus will rise above the poverty line and start paying taxes.

I do believe he falls short on the sales tax:

Still, a number of my fellow economists don't like the retail sales component of the 9-9-9 plan. They argue that, once in place, the retail rate could be raised to the moon. They are correct, but what they miss is that any tax could be instituted in the future at a higher rate. If I could figure a way to stop future Congresses from ever raising taxes I'd do it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Until then, let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

He's deflecting the focus of the argument. It's not about raising taxes. It's about creating the tax in the first place. While it may make up for the revenue, it also creates a new tax source which can be raised. Saying other taxes can be raised just as easily isn't a defense of the new tax plan.

After reading Laffer's defense of the 9-9-9, I feel better about the plan as a whole. However, I still have some very strong, lingering doubts. The sales tax is a huge concern because it's a new tax, a regressive tax, and a double tax. People often complain that capital gains are taxed twice by capital gains and by income tax. This is essentially what it's going to feel like when you have both state and federal sales tax when you buy something.

Quite frankly, I think the negatives still outweigh the positives. The sales tax being the most worrisome aspect, why doesn't Cain just ditch it and tax business and income at a higher rate (13.4%, using the numbers provided in the op-ed). It doesn't have the same ring as the 9-9-9 plan, but it certainly doesn't threaten the people's ability to consume. I expect that Cain will be further pushed on this in future debates. He's going to need a stronger defense on his own. Otherwise, he's just dust in the wind.