Huckleberry Proposes 23% Sales Tax Hey THANKS MIKE !

[Falseflagop]

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-salestax24dec24,0,5286232.story?coll=la-home-center


This guy is NUTS!!

Wantto buy a new car 20,000 well now it will be close to 25,000 !!

Milk at 5.00 a gal will now by 6.30 a gal !


NICE job Mike !


I think I like RP's plan a whole lot better!

[Antonius Stone]

I can already see his response coming: "but-but I want to get rid of the IRS!"

yeah, well that doesn't change the fact that a TWENTY THREE PERCENT SALES TAX would KILL what remains of the middle class in this Country.

dipstick.

[constituent]

since we're a "consumer" society, it only makes sense to tax "consumption" right?

that way the rich get soaked... right?

oh, wrong?

n/m.

[fireworks_god]

If we come out of the primaries and Huckabee is still considered a serious contender in the media, we need to do some ads that will directly get to the American people, about how the cost of everything will go up. Hopefully he'll crash and burn on his own, but tell the American people that Huckabee wants you to pay more for your groceries... its a sensitive subject with them right now. Tell them Ron Paul wants to make your money more valuable AND take away taxes, while keeping those prices the same, or better... :)

[ExpatinArgentina]

Well, to be fair, huck does say he would create a monthly payment system for the poor to get their sales tax back. Wait, wouldn't that require quite a lot of people and resources to implement? Isn't there a word for that? Would it be bureaucracy or big govt? Hmmm, I thought Republicans were the fighters for small govt.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.taxhikemike.org/

[Falseflagop]

HUCK starting to lose that flavor of the month taste.

23% taxes sign us up MIKE !

[Coola]

dear. god. why.

[noxagol]

Some estimates put that tax as high as 35% too. And there is no garuantee that the income tax is abolished either, or so I hear.

[Menthol Patch]

Huckabee is a monster.

He supports the "war on drugs", supports the "war in Iraq", supports the NAU and illegal immigration (he is being advised by CFR representatives), and does not care about reducing the size of the federal government!

With his record on taxing and spending we would end up with the income tax AND a 23% national sales tax!

[Thurston Howell III]

Yeah huck, let's give government an incentive to keep consumer prices high and climbing, ya know, cause they need the revenue. And, who really thinks this tax program wouldn't morf into the monster we now have with IRS and income tax?

Name it what you will, it's still stealing the fruits of my labor.

[WilliamC]

Some estimates put that tax as high as 35% too. And there is no garuantee that the income tax is abolished either, or so I hear.

This is exactly what will happen, a national sales tax and an income tax. Without cutting spending they won't have any choice.

[ButchHowdy]

This 'Fairtax' concept is a DISASTER!!

It is claimed to be revenue neutral but a 23% sales tax would FLOOD the government's coffers with more funds than most 'experts' will admit.

The 'federal government needs to learn to exist on less as most of us have been forced to do.

[DRV45N05]

I vastly prefer consumption taxes to income taxes. Income taxes tax the three things that generate economic growth: saving, productivity, and creativity. They also incentivize people to substitute consumption for saving in the short-run, which is very bad. Consumption taxes, while they are regressive (which is a VERY bad feature of them), are preferable to income taxes economically-speaking because they induce a substitution of saving for consumption. They're both forms of the federal government distorting consumer behavior and thus the market, and if taxes are going to distort consumer behavior, you want them to do it in favor of saving rather than distort it against saving.

However, a consumption tax as high as 23% is just stupid. You'll see development of massive black market activity. It will wipe lower and middle income consumers out. (Lower-income consumers will be shielded some with the prebate, but middle-income consumers will get WIPED!) There will also be massive deficits, as nearly every reputable economist who has studied this has concluded that the rate would need to be more like 30%, which is way too high.

I personally favor substituting Green Taxes for the income tax. This way, we tax use of the Earth's resources (which includes degradation of the earth), which is truly not private property, while taxing income and consumption does tax private property. (Taxes what we produce.) It also encourages innovation to maximize resource efficiency, which will generate growth.

[Antonius Stone]

the best mantra to sum this up

FAIR TAX = STAMP ACT = BOSTON TEA PARTY PART 3

dont vote HUCK

[Menthol Patch]

I vastly prefer consumption taxes to income taxes. Income taxes tax the three things that generate economic growth: saving, productivity, and creativity. They also incentivize people to substitute consumption for saving in the short-run, which is very bad. Consumption taxes, while they are regressive (which is a VERY bad feature of them), are preferable to income taxes economically-speaking because they induce a substitution of saving for consumption. They're both forms of the federal government distorting consumer behavior and thus the market, and if taxes are going to distort consumer behavior, you want them to do it in favor of saving rather than distort it against saving.

However, a consumption tax as high as 23% is just stupid. You'll see development of massive black market activity. It will wipe lower and middle income consumers out. (Lower-income consumers will be shielded some with the prebate, but middle-income consumers will get WIPED!) There will also be massive deficits, as nearly every reputable economist who has studied this has concluded that the rate would need to be more like 30%, which is way too high.

I personally favor substituting Green Taxes for the income tax. This way, we tax use of the Earth's resources (which includes degradation of the earth), which is truly not private property, while taxing income and consumption does tax private property. (Taxes what we produce.) It also encourages innovation to maximize resource efficiency, which will generate growth.

We do NOT need a "green" tax.

We do NOT need an "income" tax.

We do NOT need a "sales" tax.

If we reduce the size and cost of government to what it was in the year 1999 we could abolish the income tax and replace it with NOTHING!

[ape]

doesn't the fairtax not only get rid of the income tax, but a ton of other taxes aswell? I recall RP saying he would support it since it's better than what we have now, or am I mistaken?

[gjdavis60]

Changing (or more likely augmenting) the source of the government's revenue will do nothing to stave the growth and reach of government. Reducing government for its own sake is the goal. Letting the people keep more of their income is a reward for having the courage to reclaim their liberty.

[Eponym_mi]

I recall RP saying he would support it since it's better than what we have now, or am I mistaken?

Yeah, maybe at a 2~3% rate.....not 20%+. And not without repealing the 16th amendment. Any discussion about a sales tax without first repealing the 16th is anathama.

[DRV45N05]

We do NOT need a "green" tax.

We do NOT need an "income" tax.

We do NOT need a "sales" tax.

If we reduce the size and cost of government to what it was in the year 1999 we could abolish the income tax and replace it with NOTHING!

Oh, I'm with you. We need to reduce the size of government monstrously; I personally believe it should be at least 50%.

I'm what you would call a "Geolibertarian," in that I believe we should tax use of natural resources and degradation of the environment and spend on public infrastructure and stewardship of the environment. From the libertarian perspective, which espouses that government should exist only to protect and preserve individual liberty, you can't preserve the liberty of future individuals and the freedom of the market in the future if the natural resources that will be needed for a free market economy in the future are not around.

[DRV45N05]

doesn't the fairtax not only get rid of the income tax, but a ton of other taxes aswell? I recall RP saying he would support it since it's better than what we have now, or am I mistaken?

He's said he could "live with it," not that he supports it. He's refused to endorse the Fair Tax.

[LibertyRevolution]

As I understand it the fair tax comsumption tax would inculde a prebate check you recive every month to cover the taxes on your basic needs. so that the poor pay no tax, and the middle class doesnt pay tax on necessities, only on want items. Atleast thats how the fair tax book makes it sound.

[icon124]

wow.....

[ThePieSwindler]

I used to sort of like the idea of a fair tax - a decent "compromise", because although spending wont be cut, itll be alot easier to build wealth, then of course, a massive grey market of craigslist, vaunted tag sales, street vendors, etc, will grow, and undoubtedly the government will do all it can to fight it, so there will probably end up being some way they enforce taxation on "grey market" transactions - perhaps a "war on craigslist" type deal. You know thats going happen if the bureaucrats lose billions in revenue from this market that would emerge.

I dont like it at all now, from an economics standpoint, a philosophical standpoint, and a spending standpoint (it allows to government to keep growing and doesnt FORCE a spending cut).

Actually, the idea of a green tax, if implemented so it didnt cause weaker investment and mismanagement like many green laws today do, would probably be a fine idea. I prefer no taxes at all, but thats never going to happen, so a PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED green tax that DOES NOT 1) significantly ramp up costs for businesses with stringent and absurd requirements and thus 2) does not cause them to externalize by raising prices significantly, i'd be quite alright with this sort of tax. Eliminate payroll/corporate taxes, replace with a green tax. So long as it doesnt hinder production and capital investment, i'm all for this idea. Getting rid of the income tax is nice, but property taxes, capital gains taxes, etc, should be abolished as well, and tariffs as low as possible, but its impossible to cut spending 75-80%, anytime in the next half century, so itd NEED to be replaced with something. A green tax that doesnt really hinder production in any way would be the least harmless tax with the most potential benefit.

Then again, as far as preserving natural resources and not wasting them, capitalism is easily the best system for such, as efficient use of resources and conservation is what keeps profit going steady. I'm not sure exactly what sort of green tax would be a good balance between keeping businesses extremely profitable (which benefits consumer and employees of all companies far more than it does the higher ups of the companies) and somewhat "green". Anything but carbon dioxide emissions, though, please!

Also, to clear up a little confusion - the 23% rate is tax-inclusive, meaning 23 out of every 100 dollars goes to the government. What this ACTUALLY means, using a tax-exclusive calculation, is that an item that is $77 (100 - 23), is taxed ~30%, as 77 * 1.30 ~= 100.

[jj111]

doesn't the fairtax not only get rid of the income tax, but a ton of other taxes aswell? I recall RP saying he would support it since it's better than what we have now, or am I mistaken?

Ron Paul said he would RELUCTANTLY support the Fair Tax as an alternative to the income tax, but that they are both evil and that the real problem is government spending, which the Fair Tax does not address at all.

[abbgt1]

I happen to agree with Ron Paul that income taxes and national sales taxes are unnessecary as long as we scaled back the Fed Gov't to it's size of 10 years ago (which Ron had his facts ready on that on Meet the Press).

However, the 23% national sales tax would not increase taxes on you & I at all. If we have to replace the Income Tax, this IS the way to go. The prebate check would take significantly less buearacracy to maintain than the current system.

The Fair Tax would save me on my taxes I'm certain. It won't inflate the real cost of the cost of goods (because corporations wouldn't be taxed on their income which is included in the cost of goods already today).

Read the book...it's a quick read and makes sense.

[FireofLiberty]

Yeah, I actually support The Fair Tax, although I prefer Ron's idea of abolishing the IRS and income tax and replacing it with nothing. The Fair Tax would abolish the IRS along with the federal personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. It would also include a monthly prebate equivalent to the Fair Tax paid on essential goods and services.

People would actually have control over how much they're taxed. Currently, people don't. The more they work the more they're taxed. The only way to avoid it is to not work and obviously that's a bad idea.

[Fyretrohl]

I am curious why a 30% tax <Sorry, I don't do the fuzzy math they try to get away with in the Fair Tax. They calculate the tax like it is a DISCOUNT. That is backwards. When I pay $1.30 for an item that should cost $1.00, that is a 30% tax. Instead, they say that .30 is 27% of 1.30.>...

Anyway, why would a 30% tax on EVERYTHING I spend money on be better than what we have now or not cost me more? You will now have to pay taxes on:

1 - Food
2 - Utilities
3 - Federal Taxes on a home purchase
4 - Federal Taxes on every doctors visit
5 - Federal Taxes on every car repair
6 - Federal Taxes on every prescription <Way to go. Hit the Medicaid people to get the money back from that program.>
7 - Federal Taxes to use a toll road

In essence, every time you hand money over for anything, the recipient will be required to collect your taxes. Everyone just became a tax agent. Guess what...All you 'contract' workers...You will now be forced to charge tax. Everyone in the US just became a tax collector...Congrats and welcome to the NEW and Improved system.

Also, the Fair Tax bill does NOT eliminate the Income Tax. That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. So, it is very possible and likely that you will end up with BOTH taxes and be paying nearly 50% on all items. Unless they make the Fair Tax an amendment itself and have the verbage to repeal the income tax...

[Anthony T]

I don't see this happening.

[FireofLiberty]

I am curious why a 30% tax <Sorry, I don't do the fuzzy math they try to get away with in the Fair Tax. They calculate the tax like it is a DISCOUNT. That is backwards. When I pay $1.30 for an item that should cost $1.00, that is a 30% tax. Instead, they say that .30 is 27% of 1.30.>...

Anyway, why would a 30% tax on EVERYTHING I spend money on be better than what we have now or not cost me more? You will now have to pay taxes on:

1 - Food
2 - Utilities
3 - Federal Taxes on a home purchase
4 - Federal Taxes on every doctors visit
5 - Federal Taxes on every car repair
6 - Federal Taxes on every prescription <Way to go. Hit the Medicaid people to get the money back from that program.>
7 - Federal Taxes to use a toll road

In essence, every time you hand money over for anything, the recipient will be required to collect your taxes. Everyone just became a tax agent. Guess what...All you 'contract' workers...You will now be forced to charge tax. Everyone in the US just became a tax collector...Congrats and welcome to the NEW and Improved system.

Also, the Fair Tax bill does NOT eliminate the Income Tax. That would require an Amendment to the Constitution. So, it is very possible and likely that you will end up with BOTH taxes and be paying nearly 50% on all items. Unless they make the Fair Tax an amendment itself and have the verbage to repeal the income tax...

That's wrong. The Fair Tax does eliminate the income tax and the IRS. What you mean to say is it doesn't put the steak through the heart that would prevent the income tax from coming back that abolishing the 16th would. The 16th amendment doesn't in and of itself create an income tax, it simply allows for one.

And once again, the things you mention like food, utilities, health care, etc. are considered essential goods and services and therefore are included in the calculation of the monthly prebate you would receive under The Fair Tax.

[FireofLiberty]

I don't see this happening.

It has more of a chance happening than simply abolishing the IRS and income tax and replacing it with nothing like Ron wants to do (and I would like to do as well). Sad, but true. There's actually quite a bit of support for The Fair Tax in Congress.

[slamhead]

Insane...and the fact that he is mentioning abolishing the IRS now is because he is afraid of Ron Paul but on the same note he wants to pander to the enslaved who are worried their gravy train will dry up. These guys are so predictable and transparent.

[slamhead]

spending first then abolish the IRS so people can see we can make it without the income tax. Or goal is no tax on wages...but lets just get him elected first.

[S3eker]

He's not going to win anyways. So this is moot

[atthegates]

He's not going to win anyways. So this is moot

yeah i agree, i dont think he's half the threat that the establishment/status quo republicans and media are, the kristol and podhoretz types that are advising giuliani - these neocon fools are the real threat we're going to have to face

[ThePieSwindler]

I am curious why a 30% tax <Sorry, I don't do the fuzzy math they try to get away with in the Fair Tax. They calculate the tax like it is a DISCOUNT. That is backwards. When I pay $1.30 for an item that should cost $1.00, that is a 30% tax. Instead, they say that .30 is 27% of 1.30.>...



Erm sort of. The "fuzzy math" is really just the difference between counting it as tax-inclusive(23%) and tax-exclusive(30%). For those that dont know (not necessarily you, just anyone reading), tax inclusive means the tax is already embedded in the final total, whereas tax exclusive is where youhave a subtotal, a tax, and a final total - what we are usually used to. In the latter sense, it is really a 30% tax, with some proposals as high as 34%.

Another downside to the fair tax is that the prebate system acts as a sort of income redistribution - heres a little clip on the matter:


The FairTax is progressive. What could possibly be fair about a progressive tax where some people have to pay a higher percentage than others merely because they are deemed to be "rich"? How is the FairTax progressive? I thought it was a flat 23 percent on all new goods and services? It is and it isn't. Under the FairTax plan, everyone pays the 23 percent tax on everything, but "every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services." The rebate is given out each month, and is based on family size and the poverty level. But like the current tax code, the FairTax can also function as a tool for income redistribution because "the poor [will] actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes."



tax-inclusive prices might not rise, but it could easily be implemented in ways that tax more than just end-user consumption, in the form of a VAT, or value-added tax, a popular favorite in europe and canada:


This will happen because such a large tax will generate a black market in goods to avoid the added tax. Politicians will find it in their self-interest to transform the FairTax into a tax at various stages of production – a VAT. This same process developed after the income tax was instituted – withholding was created in part to mask the actual level of taxation.

I will say, while i do like that the fair tax gets rid of some other terrible taxes - capital gains for one, it has many, many flaws. The "hidden tax" that is externalized by businesses to compensate for corporate income taxes is around 22% according to the fair tax book, whereas the fairtax is 30% tax exclusive, thus prices will indeed rise, theoretically around 8% to the consumer. The prebate system essentially seals the fair tax as a progressive tax, and the tax in no way solves the problem of government spending. It allows for more wealth creation, yes, and that is good, and why it is indeed preferable to the current system (so long as the 16th is repealed as well - the fair tax does not actually do this, it just gets rid of the IRS). But it also allows perfectly for government to continue along its statist path, which is the biggest issue with any form of tax that does not go toward public utilities - it is siphoned off by big government.

What bothers me is not so much the fairtax itself (other than for the stated reasons), but the hoardes of fairtax acolytes who will rush in an instant to discredit and attack anyone that brings up any sort of criticism.

[pacelli]

Huckabee is a monster.

He supports the "war on drugs", supports the "war in Iraq", supports the NAU and illegal immigration (he is being advised by CFR representatives), and does not care about reducing the size of the federal government!

With his record on taxing and spending we would end up with the income tax AND a 23% national sales tax!

Its not only CFR representatives, it is Haass himself, the president of the CFR since 2003.

[Johncjackson]

A lot of libertarians ( which includes a lot of supporters of Ron Paul) and anti-IRS people have supported the "FairTax" for years- I guess until Huckabee started running.

The idea behind it includes abolishing the IRS and getting rid of all Fed income taxes and FICA. The prebate would eliminate the sales tax on a huge portion of spending.

I think there ARE a lot of problems with it, but try to keep it in perspective.

[thatnerdyguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax

... :)

[bobmurph]

Also, to clear up a little confusion - the 23% rate is tax-inclusive, meaning 23 out of every 100 dollars goes to the government. What this ACTUALLY means, using a tax-exclusive calculation, is that an item that is $77 (100 - 23), is taxed ~30%, as 77 * 1.30 ~= 100.

Yes. Fair tax is 30%...the 23% rate is a marketing sham, gimmick, or outright lie IMO. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the fairtax...the 23% rate is probably the biggest.

I still think the Fairtax is better than the current income tax, but Ron Paul's plan is much better. I applaud Huckabee in a way for having the guts to support the fairtax. I believe most other Republicans understand it is better than the current tax code, but don't support it for the fact that it is highly misunderstood and the public can easily be misled about its effect and intentions.

[jhabers]

I happen to agree with Ron Paul that income taxes and national sales taxes are unnessecary as long as we scaled back the Fed Gov't to it's size of 10 years ago (which Ron had his facts ready on that on Meet the Press).

However, the 23% national sales tax would not increase taxes on you & I at all. If we have to replace the Income Tax, this IS the way to go. The prebate check would take significantly less buearacracy to maintain than the current system.

The Fair Tax would save me on my taxes I'm certain. It won't inflate the real cost of the cost of goods (because corporations wouldn't be taxed on their income which is included in the cost of goods already today).

Read the book...it's a quick read and makes sense.

I agree with that the fairtax is much better than the income tax. Not as good as Dr. Pauls idea though. I would suggest anyone interested in learning about the fairtax to pick up "the fairtax book" by congressman Linder and Neal Boortz.

http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410

[jhabers]

Yes. Fair tax is 30%...the 23% rate is a marketing sham, gimmick, or outright lie IMO. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the fairtax...the 23% rate is probably the biggest.

I still think the Fairtax is better than the current income tax, but Ron Paul's plan is much better. I applaud Huckabee in a way for having the guts to support the fairtax. I believe most other Republicans understand it is better than the current tax code, but don't support it for the fact that it is highly misunderstood and the public can easily be misled about its effect and intentions.

I don't think its a lie, its actually both, 23% and30%, depends how you calculate it. 23% is the inclusive tax and 30% is the exclusive tax rate. Sales tax currently is calculated exclusively (like state sales tax). Our Fed income tax rate is calculated inclusively, thats why they go with the 23% figure because its parallel to what we see on our tax returns

[TruckinMike]

First off --- Huckabee would NEVER actually support the fairtax. He is just using it as a tool to manipulate voters. He loves the power of government to much.

second -- The fairtax does one very important thing. It wakes each and every American up to the concept of wanting to reduce government spending. How? Most people today get a check FROM the government -- thus they are not "punished"--- they are "rewarded" every year with a check from dear 'ol government. With the fairtax each individual will feel the pain of each and every purchase when the tax whacks them upside the head. --- This is a GOOD thing. It makes them want a smaller government.

third -- One of the biggest PROS is that our exports would be void of built in income and capital gain taxes -- thus making our goods much more competitive in the world market. We would experience a rebirth of American manufacturing.


Yes. Fair tax is 30%...the 23% rate is a marketing sham, gimmick, or outright lie IMO

Yes the tax on the product itself would be around 30%. But when you average in the prebate with taxes paid it is reduced to around 23% in the end. Based on income tax rates. And I would except that. I write a check for thousands of dollars every year to the IRS. I would prefer everyone else in America to feel the pain along with me--- thus causing a revolt and an extreme shrinkage of government as a result.

And I did read the book, the plan is actually really good. --- when compared to the tyrannical IRS system that we have now.

I like the concept as long as the IRS is actually GONE. I like the freedom to choose. Without the GOVERNMENT FORCING me to file taxes. I love the freedom from government. Also -- The choice is yours whether to buy or save--- and imagine NO capital gains TAX!!!

Of Course... in the end --- Our man Ron Paul's plan is the BEST by far --NO IRS and NO sales tax!

TruckinMike

[bdillahu]

Fairtax may not be perfect, but it is designed to be revenue NEUTRAL... meaning bring in the same amount as we are taking from the people with the income tax now. If we can reduce the size of the government then the 23/30% (I agree... might as well just say 30) could really be dropped.

Think about it... if the 30% is accurate (and some people say its too low) then that is what we are paying NOW... we just don't realize it since its hidden.

Let's get the cost of our oversized Federal government out where "we the people" see what we are spending. Then I think it will be easier to downsize.

[TruckinMike]

Think about it... if the 30% is accurate (and some people say its too low) then that is what we are paying NOW... we just don't realize it since its hidden.

+1

TM

[Desperado]

When I first considered a National Sales Tax I was thinking somewhere between 5 and 10%. Simply because of the you are spreading the tax over a much greater population. Illegals and Criminals would now be paying tax on their their purchases as opposed to their income. Huckabee at 23% is way beyond what is needed.
No wonder they say the Huckabee has never met a tax he didn't like!

[Goldwater Conservative]

To be fair, prices would drop and/or wages would rise (the truth is probably a little of both) in the absence of income and payroll taxes, which means all the FairTax does is make the taxes embedded in goods and services visible rather than hidden.

Also, the 23% rate is used because it's tax-inclusive, which is how the income and payroll taxes the FairTax would replace are expressed. For example, if the government says your income tax burden for the year is 23%, you really owe 30% of what you'll actually keep.

I'd support the FairTax if we could first eliminate the income tax as Paul suggests, then repeal the 16th Amendment. That way, most of what would be left are progressive social programs, but they'd be funded by a regressive sales tax (at a significantly lower rate than the proposed FairTax) that replaced the regressive FICA tax (15.3%, tax-inclusive, only on labor income and only under 100K is highly regressive). Suddenly, the costs of entitlement spending become transparent.

[TSOL]

That's the problem with this.

Abolishing the IRa does not mean making up for it with some absurd Flat Tax. Jeeeez.

What part do the candidates not get ? We don't want to pay the GOVERNMENT anything.

[jhabers]

That's the problem with this.

Abolishing the IRa does not mean making up for it with some absurd Flat Tax. Jeeeez.

What part do the candidates not get ? We don't want to pay the GOVERNMENT anything.

yes that should be the end result, but I think this will help us get to that end result

[jhabers]

When I first considered a National Sales Tax I was thinking somewhere between 5 and 10%. Simply because of the you are spreading the tax over a much greater population. Illegals and Criminals would now be paying tax on their their purchases as opposed to their income. Huckabee at 23% is way beyond what is needed.
No wonder they say the Huckabee has never met a tax he didn't like!

Yes, 23% is more than is needed, but needs vary depending on government spending. With the current government spending 23% is revenue neutral. Cut spending and that 23% rapidly decreases. Spending is not going to be cut to Pauls standards over night, thats why I think the fair tax works hand in hand how I see the decrease in spending going. Also remember Huckabee did not write this bill, he just endorses it.

[ButchHowdy]

That's the problem with this.

Abolishing the IRa does not mean making up for it with some absurd Flat Tax. Jeeeez.

What part do the candidates not get ? We don't want to pay the GOVERNMENT anything.

AMEN!!

Also, Is it just me or do you find this 'prebate' concept a tad intrusive? It seems a great way to track / document / harness the masses.

[r3volution]

:eek: i just did the math , i would have to pay DOUBLE what i now pay in fed income tax !

[Fox McCloud]

I messed around with the flat tax calculator, and there's a few things I need to look at in more detail, but I believe I'd end up paying more with the flat tax than less.

Anyway, I hate the idea of the flat tax...first off, it will never get off the ground (especially since the bankers are making a profit off of the income tax). Even so, if it did get off the ground, by a miracle, it wouldn't help the consumer at all; it would actually discourage the purchasing of various goods. Yes, you're not paying the income tax, but still, paying an extra 20-30 cents on the dollar is just crazy.

the only tax I support are....well, none really (ok, tax for the highways is the only one I really tolerate). "Idiot taxes"? Yeah, those are ok, since they're completely mandatory (an example of the idiot tax is state run lotteries, which help to fund schools).

as for environmental consumption taxes, green taxes, carbon taxes, and other such environmental taxes? Worst thing ever; it'll do nothing to help the environment, and it'll only help fund various immoral agendas.

[ThePieSwindler]

yes that should be the end result, but I think this will help us get to that end result

Actually, no, this would not really do that at all. Government will not just one day decide to make itself more limited, it must be forced down in that manner. Giving it a different form of taxation is just as dangerous as any other - especially when it is a single tax with so much direct power over it, and it could be applied in so many instances of "purchase". the fairtax is preferable strictly for the reason that it allows people to save and create more wealth, but it does very little to diminish the size and scope of government - if anything, it will increase its powers because it will give them an excuse to administer some pretty invasive police powers to "uphold" the tax to make sure people arent "cheating" or "evading" it through grey market sales.

[jhabers]

Actually, no, this would not really do that at all. Government will not just one day decide to make itself more limited, it must be forced down in that manner. Giving it a different form of taxation is just as dangerous as any other - especially when it is a single tax with so much direct power over it, and it could be applied in so many instances of "purchase". the fairtax is preferable strictly for the reason that it allows people to save and create more wealth, but it does very little to diminish the size and scope of government - if anything, it will increase its powers because it will give them an excuse to administer some pretty invasive police powers to "uphold" the tax to make sure people arent "cheating" or "evading" it through grey market sales.

Yes, i agree that any form of taxation is dangerous, but it moves the power from the government, a mandatory tax on our earning to us, a "voluntary tax" per say, one that is based on consumption.

[TruckinMike]

but it moves the power from the government, a mandatory tax on our earning to us, a "voluntary tax"

Yes -- and thats much better than having the IRS in your business. Freedom from taxes and intrusive government is the end result. As I stated earlier -- the average person would now feel the wrath of BIG government. This huge sales tax would cause a new revolt -- a revolt to reduce the governments size. The only problem --- socialist hate the idea --- even if the poor are compensated' They know what I know. A revolt would soon be here. All tax and spend democrats and repugnicans would be thrown out on their ears!

TM

[Birdlady]

You'll see development of massive black market activity.

Absolutely. And do you know what the government's solution will be? A national ID card.

Most people don't realize that this FairTax and National ID card go hand and hand. To stop the black market activity, you will need to swipe your national ID card at every register/store you purchse something from. Your ID card will have specific information on it that lets the machine know what YOUR sales tax is in relation to your income. It will be a graduated sales tax. I assure you! These people who say it will be a flat tax are wrong. It might start out as a flat tax, but the media will show poor people complaining about it. There will be a huge movement in the media to make it graduated to help "lower income families".

Once this is in place our country is in trouble. They will start to track the foods we buy (They already do with those grocery cards) and transfer that information to your health insurance provider, doctor, and whoever else wants that information.
Watch this little clip. This is exactly what will happen.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4932456463057906857&q=national+ID+ordering+pizza&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[daniroyer]

Remember, it's not just 23%...you have to add on state sales tax. Where I live in Miami, FL, that means, if local stays at 7%, I'd be taxed 30% on everything.

30 cents per EVERY dollar spent.

I'd have to pay $3 in taxes for every $10 I spend. That's just plain WRONG.

I wonder if bibles would be tax-exempt in Father Huck's world...

[jhabers]

Remember, it's not just 23%...you have to add on state sales tax. Where I live in Miami, FL, that means, if local stays at 7%, I'd be taxed 30% on everything.

30 cents per EVERY dollar spent.

I'd have to pay $3 in taxes for every $10 I spend. That's just plain WRONG.

I wonder if bibles would be tax-exempt in Father Huck's world...

That is very true but you also have to realize you are already paying those taxes now, its the IRS, state tax AND embedded taxes that are built into the price of the product (which many people don't realize)

Also used good are exempt (I'm pretty sure), so yea you would pay this tax on a new car, but a used car would be tax free (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

[dircha]

Americans will not tolerate a 23% national sales tax. It's foolish to even suggest.

It's not even worth discussion. If he intends to run on this - and he is now - he will fall flat on his face in a general elections.

One of the reasons the personal income tax is so easy for so many Americans to tolerate is that for most people it comes out of their paycheck before they ever see it.

This is why Ron Paul should focus more on a presenting what practically he would do in his first term. No one is going to be passing a 23% national sales tax in the next 4 years with a Democratic controlled congress. And no one is going to be eliminating the personal income tax.

But massively cutting foreign aid and foreign military spending is something that can get through, and Congressman Paul is the only one running on this.

[ThePieSwindler]

Yes, i agree that any form of taxation is dangerous, but it moves the power from the government, a mandatory tax on our earning to us, a "voluntary tax" per say, one that is based on consumption.

So what? I'm not talking about their power to collect taxes, i'm talking about all government powers in general that are funded by taxation. If we replace everything else with a fairtax, the only benefit is that wealth creation will be alot easier. This is a great benefit, but works just as well if we being to dismantle spending and other forms of taxation. replacing it with something just makes it that much hard to force spending cuts, and thus government can go on its merry way toward ever-increasing statism.

Another thing that doesnt add up - the fair tax will "abolish capital gains, payroll taxes, income tax" and so on, then claims to be revenue neutral. Yet in the fair tax book, it claims that the "hidden tax" that businesses externalize onto the consumer to compensate for corporate taxes the rate is 22%, whilst under the fairtax, the rate is 23% inclusive. How does a 1% increase in price equate to raising nearly 40% of the tax income? I call bullshit on the FairTax book's numbers.

[HillbillyDan]

Yes, thanks Mike. Gee, as president, what other beautiful things does he have in mind for us. I might as well get the chip in my neck right now, as I detest standing in loooong lines.

[jhabers]

Absolutely. And do you know what the government's solution will be? A national ID card.


great point!

[TruckinMike]

The national ID is ALREADY here!!!


The Real ID Act, slipped into an emergency federal funding bill without hearings, originally required states to begin issuing the ID documents by May 2008. The proposed rules allow states to ask for an extension until Jan. 1, 2010.

look it up.

TM

[Fyretrohl]

Well, from my selfish perspective, I prefer the IRS to the Fair Tax. Of course, via the IRS, I do not pay anything in taxes. And, there is the rub. I would now have to pay fair tax on things I don't have to cover today. My available income goes down <Based on my cost of living going WAY up>. See, Ron Paul getting rid of the IRS would not change the money in my pocket either. It would just mean I did not have to JUSTIFY not paying taxes.