VoluntaryMan
01-12-2008, 03:41 PM
Back in the 1980s, there was a movement among Democratic legislators to go to a "Value-added Tax" (VAT), which is a euphemism for a hidden sales tax, a sales tax that is hidden within the price of goods and services, instead of added to the price at the counter (point of sale or POS). The VAT was supposed to be used in addition to the income tax, so that revenues could be raised more or less covertly, or at least beneath the radar of the masses, not unlike the inflation tax. In fact, Gov. Jerry Brown, Jr., back in the 1992 presidential campaign, proposed a combination national sales tax and federal income tax of exactly 23% (sound familiar?) each. During his campaign, Gov. Brown admitted that these percentages would not be fixed, but could increase, as the federal gov't required more revenue.
For the reasons stated above, I have always been suspicious of any national sales tax proposal, even when the people pushing it promise us that it's intended as a "substitute" for the current income tax system. In recent years, it's been a segment off Republicans and Libertarian promoting the idea of a national sales tax, but they can't even get their numbers straight: they tell us it will be a 23% (huh?) sales tax, but any idiot can figure our that it's really 30% (23% of total paid, but 30% of price, which is how every other sales tax is calculated: percentage of price), and that's just their initial figure. Who's to say it won't increase to 50% or 70%? What's even worse is that the so-called "fair" tax scheme, that sHmUCKABEE has signed onto, would actually get every American hooked on receiving regular monthly checks, because you'd have to apply to receive a monthly federal rebate of a portion of the sales taxes you already paid, just to avoid being completely screwed. Also, if all of this isn't bad enough, there's no guaratee that accepting a national sales tax is going to make the income tax go away. We could end up saddled with both, as was originally planned by many legislators (like Ted Kennedy).
What it really comes down to, though, is this: the "fair" tax plan is the establishment's plan B, because so many people are waking up to the fraud of the current income tax system. More and more people are successfully challenging the IRS in court, and the establishment is getting nervous. If too many people awaken to the fact that they've been deceived and robbed, before the establishment is able to institute an alternate scheme, we will end up with neither.
Is a sales tax, in theory, a better idea than an income tax? In theory, yes, but the one the Huckster as signed onto is horrifying. Besides, both systems (what we'd be likely to end up with) is worse than either, and neither is better than either. I vote neither.
A parting word on Huckabee: the GOP doesn't really want him as the nominee, because they know he's a general election loser, but they want Paul (a general election winner) even less, because he will oust the neocons from party leadership positions. The neocons can survive a Huckabee loss, but can't survive a Paul victory, which is why, if they were able to succeed in getting Dr. Paul out of the race, Huckabee's star would quickly fade, in favor of a more general election friendly candidate. The Huckster's Herd believe they are riding a dark horse, but they are really riding a stalking horse; they just don't know it, yet.
For the reasons stated above, I have always been suspicious of any national sales tax proposal, even when the people pushing it promise us that it's intended as a "substitute" for the current income tax system. In recent years, it's been a segment off Republicans and Libertarian promoting the idea of a national sales tax, but they can't even get their numbers straight: they tell us it will be a 23% (huh?) sales tax, but any idiot can figure our that it's really 30% (23% of total paid, but 30% of price, which is how every other sales tax is calculated: percentage of price), and that's just their initial figure. Who's to say it won't increase to 50% or 70%? What's even worse is that the so-called "fair" tax scheme, that sHmUCKABEE has signed onto, would actually get every American hooked on receiving regular monthly checks, because you'd have to apply to receive a monthly federal rebate of a portion of the sales taxes you already paid, just to avoid being completely screwed. Also, if all of this isn't bad enough, there's no guaratee that accepting a national sales tax is going to make the income tax go away. We could end up saddled with both, as was originally planned by many legislators (like Ted Kennedy).
What it really comes down to, though, is this: the "fair" tax plan is the establishment's plan B, because so many people are waking up to the fraud of the current income tax system. More and more people are successfully challenging the IRS in court, and the establishment is getting nervous. If too many people awaken to the fact that they've been deceived and robbed, before the establishment is able to institute an alternate scheme, we will end up with neither.
Is a sales tax, in theory, a better idea than an income tax? In theory, yes, but the one the Huckster as signed onto is horrifying. Besides, both systems (what we'd be likely to end up with) is worse than either, and neither is better than either. I vote neither.
A parting word on Huckabee: the GOP doesn't really want him as the nominee, because they know he's a general election loser, but they want Paul (a general election winner) even less, because he will oust the neocons from party leadership positions. The neocons can survive a Huckabee loss, but can't survive a Paul victory, which is why, if they were able to succeed in getting Dr. Paul out of the race, Huckabee's star would quickly fade, in favor of a more general election friendly candidate. The Huckster's Herd believe they are riding a dark horse, but they are really riding a stalking horse; they just don't know it, yet.