He is the only candidate within striking distance of Romney in Iowa and is hanging his campaign on a victory or a close second there to catapult him into the real race. He's a far more palatable conservative to more moderate Republicans than Ron Paul and would be the only semi-viable Southern Republican in the entire race.

Whether or not he's a viable candidate, his first commercial has already made some wake. Not sure if this is the right way for a candidate with only a little money to introduce himself to the world but here it is:



[Edited on November 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ok, I really just created this thread as an excuse to show the video.]

11/22/2007 3:35:14 PM

FUCK THAT

His fiscal record as governor is abysmal, frequently raising taxes and spending. He's also a strong social conservative, frequently using his faith to guide him in policy issues. That's the last thing we need right now.

In short, he's the worst kind of republican: Fiscally progressive, socially conservative.

11/22/2007 3:46:02 PM

I've only seen him on The Daily Show (so I don't know too much about his platform) really, but he's one of the few running now that doesn't give me creepy bad vibes. Kucinich and Gravel are the other 2.

11/22/2007 3:49:18 PM

Quote :

"he's one of the few running now that doesn't give me creepy bad vibes. Kucinich and Gravel are the other 2"

What does that say about politicians

Yeah, I'm not endorsing him by any stretch of the imagination, I'm more bringing it up since he appears to be rising in stature a bit recently.

11/22/2007 3:52:12 PM

I like him. Mostly for his support of the fair tax and ending income tax

11/22/2007 4:37:08 PM

^aha, and you believe he's sincere about that?

http://www.taxhikemike.org/

11/22/2007 5:03:39 PM

^a boy can dream

11/22/2007 9:32:55 PM

Quote :

"I like him. Mostly for his support of the fair tax and ending income tax"

11/22/2007 10:10:10 PM

Quote :

"I like him. Mostly for his support of the fair tax and ending income tax"

Haha, go ahead and vote for a tax hike on yourself then. Thats all the "fair tax" is anyway. A reshouldering of the tax burden on the middle class. Thats why its only being pushed by the economic elites and doesn't have broad based support. Oh, and ask the poor and lower middle class how "fair" their wage structure, hiring of illegal immigrants, outsourcing, layoffs and lack of health benefits are in this country. You want a fair tax...participate in a fair labor market then.

[Edited on November 22, 2007 at 11:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/22/2007 11:19:31 PM

First off, the president can lobby for or veto tax bills, but he can't write or sponsor them. So this is kind of a moot point since we're all but guaranteed to have a Democratic congress.

Quote :

"hiring of illegal immigrants, outsourcing, layoffs"

Largely due to the comparative cost of American labor to foreign labor. This isn't a tax issue at all.

Quote :

" and lack of health benefits are in this country. You want a fair tax...participate in a fair labor market then."

How, when we can't afford what we're spending now, do you propose to pay for health benefits? Don't say cutting taxes grows the economy because we're on the verge of an almost inevitable downturn (at least short term) in the economy.

11/22/2007 11:32:44 PM

yeah, i mean its great and all that you support your candidate.... but who's going to run in 2008?

11/23/2007 2:13:21 AM

^I dont see the fairtax as a tax hike, I actually see it as being a fairer tax than the income tax. I also think you will see an economic boom as people actually get to keep what they make. I know I could buy a bmw in cash with the taxes I pay a year, so yeah Im for it. Letting people choose how to spend thier money vs government= good idea in my book.

11/23/2007 10:55:19 AM

I think Huckabee is a good dude, which counts for a lot in his line of work.

but basically, i think he's the best kind of the 2nd-worst kind of Republican (the very worst being a true neocon).

11/24/2007 2:52:14 AM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2007/11/huckabee_and_norris_go_on_gret.html

Good videos for anyone not too familiar with Mr. Huckabee. He sounds great to me.

11/30/2007 11:04:59 PM

I admire Huckabee for his unabashed support for the FairTax Bill.

Quote :

"A reshouldering of the tax burden on the middle class."

Since the Fairtax taxes spending rather than earnings, the "filthy" rich who no longer earn any income and just live off their wealth will begin to pay federal taxes when they buy their yachts and caviar. And rememebr that the poor pay no federal taxes under the FairTax.

The FairTax is a replacement for the Income tax. It's purpose is limited to that function and not trying to make the labor market fair. The FairTax will turn America into a huge tax haven for businesses who will flock back to our shores bringing jobs.

11/30/2007 11:34:59 PM

I admire Huckabee for his unabashed disbelief in evolution.

11/30/2007 11:40:09 PM

Will you idiots support a candidate that will actually accomplish something? This talk on immigration, flat taxing and abortion is all well and good, but the R's had been in office for 6 years with the president, both houses of congress and a right leaning supreme court and they accomplished nothing but monumental corruption. What makes you people think that they would accomplish any of these if elected? Do you people believe in anything other than hating queers, Mexicans and the poor?

11/30/2007 11:43:14 PM

Quote :

"I know I could buy a bmw in cash with the taxes I pay a year, so yeah Im for it."

yeah, but could you buy a BMW + 20% or whatever tax will be added onto it?
that's actually more of a general question about FairTax. Will all consumer goods immediately get a 15-20% markup at the register for a National Tax?
That could be a bit of a sticker shock.....

11/30/2007 11:44:45 PM

You people are crazy for supporting the "fairtax". Go ahead and vote yourself a tax increase and give a tax cut to the rich who will simply move their purchases and money offshore. You are arguing against your own rational economic self interest. You are talking about "fair" taxes while the economic elites outsource jobs and find tax loopholes by incorporating in the Caymans.




PS see your cost of gasoline per gallon instantly go over $4 because of adding of federal sales taxes to state fuel taxes, which will not be repealed.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 12:00 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2007 11:47:48 PM

ha, just found this on Wiki (where ^ came from too)



year published? 1933

11/30/2007 11:56:31 PM

Well I just lost some respect for Chuck Norris there.

12/1/2007 12:40:07 AM

Quote :

"Do you people believe in anything other than hating queers, Mexicans and the poor? "

Wow, take the blinders off smart guy. You sound like Al Sharpton or something. "Rebublicans hate minorities and poor people!" Grow up and think for yourself, instead of getting your news from MTV and Hollywood.

12/1/2007 12:44:39 AM

oh I guess you showed me with your clever little anecdote

12/1/2007 12:48:08 AM

Here's the full report the above graph was lifted from, which contains a more detailed analysis of the impact of the NST proposal, considering issues of evasion, prebating, etc.

http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_Ch9.pdf

The analysis is interesting, if sobering. I'd be interested to hear responses to the analysis from proponents of the FairTax plan.

In particular, this element of the conclusion is pretty damning:

Quote :

"Without a large cash grant program to ease the burden of the tax, a retail sales tax would not be appropriately progressive. A cash grant program to make the tax appropriately progressive would cost at least $600 billion per year – which would make it America’s largest entitlement program."

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 1:10 AM. Reason : Discussion of conclusion]

12/1/2007 1:05:33 AM

Hell, even the Presidents panel thought this was a bad idea

Quote :

"After careful evaluation, the Panel decided to reject a complete replacement of the federal income tax system with a retail sales tax for a number of reasons. Two considerations were particularly important to the Panel’s decision: • Replacing the income tax with a retail sales tax, absent a way to ease the burden of the retail sales tax on lower and middle-income Americans, would not meet the requirement in the Executive Order that the Panel’s options be appropriately progressive. • Although a program could be designed to reduce the burden of a retail sales tax on lower-income and middle-income taxpayers by providing cash grants, such cash grants would represent a new entitlement program – by far the largest in American history. Adjusting the distribution of the burden of the retail sales tax through a cash grant program would cost approximately $600 billion to $780 billion per year and make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government for a substantial portion of their incomes. The Panel concluded that such a cash grant program would inappropriately increase the size and scope of government."

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 1:15 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2007 1:14:47 AM

Scuba's chart comes from factcheck.org. Americans for Fair Taxation responded with this:

Quote :

"Despite our telephone discussion with Joe Miller of FactCheck.org, FactCheck.org refused to correct blatant errors; for example, insisting that presentation of a chart on distribution that purported to be the FairTax but actually was an entirely different tax plan was acceptable."

As to the claim that the FairTax will hit the middle class too hard. The FairTax group responds with this:

Quote :

"FactCheck.org’s statement is based on a U.S. Treasury Department analysis (Figure 9.4 of which is shown) of a plan which is not the FairTax. The chart and the Treasury study depict an alternative retail sales tax plan invented by the Treasury Department that had a different tax base than the FairTax. In fact, the chart depicts a “plan” that does not repeal payroll taxes, which are 41 percent of personal income taxes, and leaves out more than $771 billion in regressive taxes that fall mostly on the poor and middle-income wage earners."

As to the funny cartoon from 1933. I wonder what the cartoonist would draw today after seeing the results of congress pulling us into with the bloated income tax?

12/1/2007 1:16:48 AM

So, a few questions then: Does the FairTax plan actually repeal FICA (and thus account for the loss of revenues), what other taxes do they refer to (I assume excise taxes), and how do they propose that this would affect the distribution of the tax burden?

I'm well aware that FICA cuts out at $90K, which would certainly have an effect on the middle-income tax distribution, but how significant is it? Has anyone actually shown what the "correctly" weighted distribution in light of their would be, and how the new tax rate would also account for FICA?

12/1/2007 1:20:35 AM

Hey, if you want to pay higher taxes because you think its "fairer" to you, go ahead.

Why are we even debating this... it will never pass. Its just a distraction from the pressing issues of the day.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 1:27 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2007 1:21:09 AM

Quote :

"Why are we even debating this... it will never pass. Its just a distraction from the pressing issues of the day."

If that is our criterion for discussion, then what, pray tell, should we be discussing? You may have noticed that most other important issues - like immigration reform - are pretty much stalled, and the only "debate" going on nationally is a clash of demagogues. Is that any more "likely to pass?"

12/1/2007 1:30:05 AM

Quote :

"I'd be interested to hear responses to the analysis from proponents of the FairTax plan. "

Here is the FairTax group's response to the Tax Panel report:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Excerpts_from_response_to_tax_panel-103006.pdf

Quote :

"Does the FairTax plan actually repeal FICA"

Yes. The FairTax bill removes all federal income tax, and all Payroll taxes (SS, Medicare etc). Your paycheck would only show state tax deductions.

The FairTax has been calculated to be revenue-neutral. So it would replace the FICA deduction. One interesting aspect is that foreign tourists would now help pay our FICA since they would be paying the sales tax on their purchases while visiting.

Quote :

"it will never pass."

whenever I read these types of comments, I think of the majority of American colonists who kept telling the revolutionaries that we could never break away from the most powerful country in the world at that time...so why bother?

If we get fed up enough, the American people are a formidable group... one that even our politicians cannot stand against.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 1:35 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2007 1:30:24 AM

I would like a valid reason why I would vote for something like this. I'm only seeing myself having a higher tax burden.

12/1/2007 1:38:00 AM

Quote :

"Yes. The FairTax bill removes all federal income tax, and all Payroll taxes (SS, Medicare etc). Your paycheck would only show state tax deductions. The FairTax has been calculated to be revenue-neutral. So it would replace the FICA deduction. One interesting aspect is that foreign tourists would now help pay our FICA since they would be paying the sales tax on their purchases while visiting."

Here's the problem I see immediately see, then - the Tax Panel's report on the non-FairTax plan calculated a tax-inclusive rate of about 34% - which is pretty close to the FairTax. It also proposes a wide tax base on services, in addition to goods - again, similar to the FairTax. But if they're not including cutting out FICA, well... it would seem we have a revenue disparity.

So... how is this disparity resolved? (I'll have a look at ATR's rebuttal, but this seems particularly glaring.)

12/1/2007 1:38:24 AM

Ok, I'm reading the ATR rebuttal, and I'm already seeing problems.

Quote :

"Panel statement #2 Using a cash grant (the prebate) program would create the largest entitlement in the history of the United States and that would not be a good precedent as it would make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government for a substantial portion of their incomes. FairTax response While we deplore the use of loaded words like “entitlement,” the current system spends about $456 billion more than the FairTax on just such spending. The FairTax prebate is a rebate of taxes paid (albeit, in advance) on spending up to the poverty level based on family size. The prebate cost is estimated by The Beacon Hill Institute (a Massachusetts free-market think tank) to be $489 billion (assuming 100 percent participation). Compare that to the $945 billion of income tax deductions, tax preferences, loopholes, credits, etc. that we have under the current system (a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate).3 In stark contrast to the current system, and in concert with the constitutional concept of uniformity of taxation across all citizens, the FairTax treats all taxpayers equally compared to the way the current system rewards friends and punishes enemies with its $945 billion. Furthermore, the tax panel grossly overestimates the FairTax prebate because it grossly underestimated the FairTax base, resulting in a rate that is much too high. (See response to statement #3.)"

This seems like a huge bait-and-switch. For one, deductions on the current tax system aren't checks coming in from the government. Not the same thing in the slightest.

Second, a "gross overestimation" comes out to a difference of, let's see: $3,400 per year for a single individual in the Treasury plan versus $2,348 in the FairTax plan. And for a couple with two children, the Treasure says $6,400, FairTax says... $6,297.

...yeah. Not exactly a "gross distortion" there, guys.

Also, the rhetorical language in the rebuttal that somehow the commission's report was written by a bunch of axe-men and lobbyists is a little off-putting. The actual plan they endorse hardly seems like a lobbyist's dream - it actually advocates cutting out craploads of loopholes and simplifying things a bit. If the panel could be faulted for anything, it's a lack of ambition.

I mean, read the executive summary of their findings:

http://www.taxreformpanel.gov/final-report/TaxReform_ExSumm.pdf

Both their plans propose keeping and expanding the mortgage interest deduction - and if you want to talk about welfare for the middle class, there you go. But lobbyist hackery? Hardly.

12/1/2007 1:54:56 AM

Quote :

"For one, deductions on the current tax system aren't checks coming in from the government. Not the same thing in the slightest. "

An income tax deduction is money you get to keep and not send in. With the FairTax, everyone pays the tax at the register. That money goes to the gov't. A portion of it is sent back to you, in the form of a monthly prebate, based on the poverty numbers. So the prebate is still money you get to keep.

Quote :

"Not exactly a "gross distortion" there, guys."

The main complaint is that the Tax Panel is changing the FairTax plan and then criticising that plan. This is a common problem that FairTax proponents come up against. It could be due to the fact that not everyone is familiar enough with the details of the plan. Critics use that fact to distort the bill and then attack it.

Quote :

"The actual plan they endorse hardly seems like a lobbyist's dream"

Actually, The income tax is the lobbyist's dream. The plan that this panel recommended is similar to the Reagan flat tax plan that passed in the 1980s. That plan simplified everything, cut out loopholes and such. But after it passed, lobbyists and politicians began changing it..making it the overbearing, monstrosity that we have today.

The FairTax groups were pretty excited to present the plan to the Tax Panel Group. I watched it on CSPAN. But I could tell from the get-go that the panel had no desire to take it seriously. You could tell from their questions and demeanor that they wanted to keep the income tax. Another very disappointing Bush let-down.

12/1/2007 2:17:35 AM

Quote :

"An income tax deduction is money you get to keep and not send in. With the FairTax, everyone pays the tax at the register. That money goes to the gov't. A portion of it is sent back to you, in the form of a monthly prebate, based on the poverty numbers. So the prebate is still money you get to keep."

The problem isn't a matter of money in your pocket, the problem is the government cutting lots and lots of checks every month. Not being liable for taxes is not the same thing as getting a check for a tax "prebate" each month, which translates into a de facto entitlement.

Quote :

"The main complaint is that the Tax Panel is changing the FairTax plan and then criticising that plan. This is a common problem that FairTax proponents come up against. It could be due to the fact that not everyone is familiar enough with the details of the plan. Critics use that fact to distort the bill and then attack it."

But where was it so radically different? They considered a broad-based NST both without and with a prebate, calculated the required amount for it to be revenue-neutral, etc. The differences ATR is complaining about seem to be fairly minute - for instance, the "gross distortion" on the prebate is anything but.

They also have to realistically consider what the impact of evasion will be, which will go up as the rate goes up. This has a feedback effect on the rate. Regardless of that, I don't see how their consideration of an NST's base is artificially "narrower" than the FairTax's base.

Quote :

"Actually, The income tax is the lobbyist's dream. The plan that this panel recommended is similar to the Reagan flat tax plan that passed in the 1980s. That plan simplified everything, cut out loopholes and such. But after it passed, lobbyists and politicians began changing it..making it the overbearing, monstrosity that we have today."

I'm not arguing the merits of the income tax system, I'm arguing the merits of their proposal. Their specific proposal, contrary to the claims of the ATR paper, is not "a lobbyist's dream." Sure, Congress monkeys with the tax system to punish and reward different behaviors all the time, particularly to win over constituencies and moneyed interests. But that's not what their proposed plan does, and saying it does so is a fraud.

That being said, something else which concerns me - who is to say Congress wouldn't do the exact same thing to a FairTax base? Exempt certain goods and services, make a hash out of it, like so many states already do with their sales taxes? (Illinois' is such a mess that they can't even properly enforce the correct rates on different goods).

The fact that lobbyists and special interests complicate the tax code is a universal problem to which no tax plan is clearly immune.

Quote :

"The FairTax groups were pretty excited to present the plan to the Tax Panel Group. I watched it on CSPAN. But I could tell from the get-go that the panel had no desire to take it seriously. You could tell from their questions and demeanor that they wanted to keep the income tax. Another very disappointing Bush let-down."

I would be willing to believe that this group was certainly hostile to any radical change (again, look at their lack of ambition overall with regards to reform), but I don't see where their facts are substantially in error. Particularly, we have a serious revenue discrepancy - if the panel's plan doesn't repeal FICA and the ATR's does, how do we account for the difference in revenues?

12/1/2007 2:30:10 AM

Quote :

"He is the only candidate within striking distance of Romney in Iowa and is hanging his campaign on a victory or a close second there to catapult him into the real race. He's a far more palatable conservative to more moderate Republicans than Ron Paul and would be the only semi-viable Southern Republican in the entire race."

so your reasoning for supporting him is that he's not the best candidate (ron paul), he's just the one that most of the voting (retarded) american public could fall for. way to make the founding fathers proud buddy, don't campaign for the best candidate, the one who follows the constitution and truly cares about individual rights, vote for the guy that most of the blind, sheepish public could get behind

12/1/2007 8:03:42 AM

Oh boy ... a social conservative and fiscal liberal. I can't imagine anything better for the country!

12/1/2007 8:54:21 AM

^
^^
fo real

what a joke

12/1/2007 9:32:30 AM

Quote :

"I would like a valid reason why I would vote for something like this. I'm only seeing myself having a higher tax burden. "

First of all, people and families will not be taxed up to a certain limit, based on how much that person/family is expected to spend on necessities. For example, I believe a family of 4 will be able to spend up to $22,000 per year tax free (I am drawing this from memory, as I have to run to work in a second). There is a specific formula that determines what your tax rebate will be, depending on your income and your family situation. So your argument that you will automatically be in a "higher tax burden" is just false. You can choose how much taxes you pay by limiting your spending. If you don't want to pay a lot of taxes, guess what you can do? Don't buy as many things. The billionaires out there will still buy their private jets and their lambos.

Second: drug dealers, gamblers, thugs, and prostitutes will no longer allude taxes. Think about how much revenue this will generate alone.

Face it, you don't like this idea because it's being backed by a conservative. If little Hillary was backing this plan, you would be saying "Oh, she is looking out for the poor and the minorities! She wants to tax the rich people! She is soo compassionate!"

12/1/2007 10:27:33 AM

Quote :

"Oh boy ... a social conservative and fiscal liberal. I can't imagine anything better for the country!"

Yeah, populists are wonderful people.

I'm not criticizing you, I'm in agreement. The Republican Party nominating a populist would be a huge disaster for this country.

12/1/2007 10:35:22 AM

Quote :

"..."prebate" each month, which translates into a de facto entitlement."

With the income tax, We already have the Earned Income Credit whish is pretty much an entitlement program. The sad fact is that it is near impossible to get any type of tax reform accomplished that doesn't relieve the poor from paying taxes.

The FairTax has a way of doing this and helping everyone else at the same time..by letting them avoid sales-tax up to the poverty level.

Quote :

"But where was it so radically different?"

I don't have the the super specifics...but I beleive the version the Tax Panel came up with mirrored the tax-base of state sales taxes. It didn't cover as many things and thus required the rate to be higher to be revenue neutral.

Quote :

"consider what the impact of evasion will be"

I think evasion will exist but on a smaller level. Right now you have 150 million taxpayers to keep an eye on. With the FairTax, you are basically watching a smaller amount of tax-payers...namely the retailing establishments. I can tell you that states have sales tax enforcement down pretty good. Most store owners are not going to risk their livlihood in order to give you a tax-free deal on a pair of jeans.

Quote :

""a lobbyist's dream." "

Basically the Tax Panel recommended Reagan's old plan. Just "re-set" the income tax back a bit like they did in '86 and let it go. We tried that already and look what we got.

Quote :

"who is to say Congress wouldn't do the exact same thing to a FairTax base? "

That is a very good point. Whatever system you put in place has to be watched carefully by the public. The income tax wouldn't be as bad a mess today if we had been more diligent and stopped politicians from monkeying around with it too much.

The problem with targeted tax breaks is that they really help a small minority who is highly motivated to get tehm. The effect of the tax break on the rest of us is small so we don't do anything about it. But all those tax-breaks and adjustmetns add up eventually to a nightmare.

The key is to give the congress a tax plan that is hard to mess with without attracting the attention of the majority of the public. We are all acutely aware whent he state sales tax is increased because it hits our wallets immediately. Any change in the tax-base will result in a change in the sales tax rate..which will get noticed instantly.

Quote :

"if the panel's plan doesn't repeal FICA and the ATR's does, how do we account for the difference in revenues?"

I'm not sure I'm following you completely on this one. Are you saying the Tax Panel's version of the National Sales tax kept FICA withdrawels and then claimed we would still need a 34% rate to stay rev. neutral?

The AFT group had a lot of economists and big-thinkers develop the plan. They claim the FairTax would be revenue neutral if put in exactly as they designed.

Of course as a libertarian, I'm going to support Ron Paul's idea of eliminating the income tax altogether and replacing it with nothing. I think he claimed that if we dropped the income tax, gov't spending would only have to fall back to the Clinton era levels.

12/1/2007 10:41:55 AM

Quote :

"With the income tax, We already have the Earned Income Credit whish is pretty much an entitlement program. The sad fact is that it is near impossible to get any type of tax reform accomplished that doesn't relieve the poor from paying taxes."

Right, and I get that, but not everyone gets the EIC. That's kind of the point. The whole concept of the EIC owes its lineage to Milton Friedman, who suggested a negative income tax as an alternative to traditional welfare.

Quote :

"The FairTax has a way of doing this and helping everyone else at the same time..by letting them avoid sales-tax up to the poverty level."

But I don't think that's the issue in dispute. The issue is the massive entitlement the "prebate" to accomplish this turns into.

Quote :

"I don't have the the super specifics...but I beleive the version the Tax Panel came up with mirrored the tax-base of state sales taxes. It didn't cover as many things and thus required the rate to be higher to be revenue neutral."

But it seems like they're quibbling over a few percentage points, and then launching into the Tax Panel for using the "tax-exclusive" rate, which is how everyone refers to sales tax. ATR's habit of trying to sell the FairTax through the "tax-inclusive" rate is kind of an annoying sleight-of-hand. And the panel didn't even remotely try and hide their methodology for this - they have a big pull-out box explaining what the difference between the two methods is. It's not like they're hiding anything there.

Quote :

"Basically the Tax Panel recommended Reagan's old plan. Just "re-set" the income tax back a bit like they did in '86 and let it go. We tried that already and look what we got."

But again - the proposal is not a lobbyist's dream. It's what was done to the tax code after that point. You can make the argument that it's still vulnerable, but to attack the proposal itself as "a lobbyists' dream" is highly disingenuous - it, like many of the other questionable issues in their rebuttal, makes it difficult to take them seriously. Which is troubling, because the simplicity of a NST is a place where I pull a Fox Mulder: "I want to believe." But they're not doing a good job of selling their case at all, especially when they misrepresent the report in their rebuttal.

Quote :

"That is a very good point. Whatever system you put in place has to be watched carefully by the public. The income tax wouldn't be as bad a mess today if we had been more diligent and stopped politicians from monkeying around with it too much."

But that's my whole point. Arguing that one system is "a lobbyist's dream" when any other system is vulnerable to the exact same flaw of special-interest politics is special pleading.

Quote :

"The key is to give the congress a tax plan that is hard to mess with without attracting the attention of the majority of the public. We are all acutely aware whent he state sales tax is increased because it hits our wallets immediately. Any change in the tax-base will result in a change in the sales tax rate..which will get noticed instantly."

And transparency is certainly a selling point of the NST model. But they're not doing a very good job of seriously addressing the concerns of the panel, particularly with revenue projections and projected tax burdens. If the Tax Panel fails to eliminate FICA in their plan, why? How does it fail to balance? If the tax they propose is too narrowly based, how would the FairTax plan actually renormalize in terms of the tax burden compared to the current system - particularly if more goods and services will be taxed?

These are important questions which they completely gloss over, instead just acting like the Tax Panel did a hatchet job on them, when in fact it seems like they go to great lengths to at least evaluate the proposal, even if they come off as immediately skeptical.

Quote :

"I'm not sure I'm following you completely on this one. Are you saying the Tax Panel's version of the National Sales tax kept FICA withdrawels and then claimed we would still need a 34% rate to stay rev. neutral?"

That is, from what I gather from the back-and-forth, why the alleged burden on middle-income earners increases. If you can find something which would demonstrate otherwise, I'm all ears. But that's why there's the "down-shift," is my understanding - FICA stays in place. FICA stops at $90K, which is why you see the "bulge" around the edge of the third quintile, with a sudden drop as you hit the fourth.

Quote :

"Of course as a libertarian, I'm going to support Ron Paul's idea of eliminating the income tax altogether and replacing it with nothing. I think he claimed that if we dropped the income tax, gov't spending would only have to fall back to the Clinton era levels."

1995, if I recall - at least that's what the WapPo's factcheckers said. RP's campaign has said 2000, which may be more questionable. And there's a lot less room for questionable numbers - we know how much revenue we need, and how much would be eliminated if we got rid of the income tax.

Either way, while the FairTax is certainly a novel idea, but it's discouraging to see their unwillingness to take the Tax Panel's critique seriously.

12/1/2007 4:57:38 PM

Quote :

"yeah, but could you buy a BMW + 20% or whatever tax will be added onto it? that's actually more of a general question about FairTax. Will all consumer goods immediately get a 15-20% markup at the register for a National Tax? That could be a bit of a sticker shock..... "

Thats not really the case. There would NOT be an increase in the price at the store by 20%. Actually the prices should stay the same or a slight increase. The reason is that taxes on the good the company pays just bringing the product to market.

Besides, even if the cost of goods went up 20%. It would be better than an income tax in my opinion, because I choose to spend the money as opposed for being penalized simply for being productive.

Scuba typical liberal response...but but but the rich will get a break... take more of their money. As opposed to seeing it for what it is, more control to the individual. Then mention people taking money to the caymans? Why do they do that? Could it be to avoid TAXES? If there werent any on that income more money would be in THIS country. Here is a news flash for you scuba. The ultra rich can afford great accountants who are great at creatign little earned income to be taxed.

I also love your graph talking about this tax increase. You seem to have no problem with people making over 200k footing 50% of the bill, when all the other groups under 100k dont add up to those people combined. Yeah, but thats ok. LOL typical

12/1/2007 5:19:05 PM

^ What do you expect? Everyone looks out for themselves and does not care about anyone else. That's what made this country great: individualism.

Take you for example. In a previous thread, you stated how much you made. If we assume that chart is correct, you would be taking either a 3.2% tax increase (75k-100k) or a 4.3% tax increase (100k-200k) with zero regard to previous debts, while the rich rich (greater than 200k) would get their taxes cut 7.6%. My taxes based on my current salary would go up 3.4% (50k-75k).

It looks like the FairTax shifts a partial tax burden from the rich to the middle middle class and upper middle class, which is what most of us would top out at if we just did the "work hard all your life and you'll move up the ladder" plan of working.

[Edited on December 1, 2007 at 7:31 PM. Reason : /]

12/1/2007 7:26:34 PM

Ryan, I dont believe that is the case. EVERYONE would take home what they make. I could choose how much taxes I pay by what I spend. Yes I make over 100k but I drive an eight year old car with 140k miles on it. I save my money, so later in life I can live of my savings. A girl at one of our offices just bought a new explorer, started complaining about her payments are half her take home pay, and then asked for raise to afford it. WHAT!!! She was an idiot buying that much of a car. People expect ruth's chris on a mcdonalds budget. The problem with debt is peoples spending, in my opinion.

Anyway, back to the fairtax. I am more in favor of a fairtax than an income tax because it gives people the control. If you bought a learjet thats a shitload of tax, vs a civic. So people with high lifestyles will pay more tax. Right? So if you live within or below your means, you have a greater opportunity to increase your wealth. Its a great thing.

My ideal tax would be a goverment sales tax. Period. However, no tax on essientials. Medicines(not taxed now), groceries, and clothes under a certain dollar figure. Tax the rest.

The problem with the current system is the irresponsible keep wanting lifestyle upgrades at the expense of the productive. Its just not fair to tax people for working.

12/1/2007 9:30:50 PM

The reason the "fairtax" is unfair is because the wealthy are able to save considerably more. Someone who makes $1 million a year can easily live (very, very well) on $10k a month, pay about $35k a year in consumption based taxes and put the other $865k a year in savings. This effectively reduces their tax burden from $325k a year in income based taxes to $35k a year in consumption taxes.

A family on a $100k budget could probably put away $20k a year, but would play almost $30k a year in consumption taxes because they HAVE to spend a higher amount of their income, because they don't have as much discretionary income.

So someone making $1 million a year and a family making $100k a year could pay nearly the same taxes.

Might I also add that increasing the tax burden on the middle class will raise the cost of goods and services, making us less competitive on the world markets. Plus, if everyone started saving their money instead of spending, it would be disastrous to business, which would also be disastrous to our stock market and also slow economic growth.

12/1/2007 9:57:48 PM

Quote :

"The reason the "fairtax" is unfair is because the wealthy are able to save considerably more."

Wow, you really opened my eyes here. You are right. THey are also able to afford nicer things too. So you are saying that because they have more money its unfair for them to choose what to do with thier money? Or anyone else for that matter?

hahah, yeah saving money= bad thing. The cost of goods should remain the same after the imbedded taxes are cut out of the cost.

Where do you get that I would pay 30k in consumption taxes? Bc I HAVE to spend it? WTF
I think you and I think on two different levels to agree on much scuba.

I dont see how it will raise the tax burden on the middle class, if anything workers will take home what they make and could actually SAVE for thier futures, instead of relying on governement programs soley for retirement.

12/1/2007 10:09:06 PM

So, the middle class and lower middle class (ie the vast majority of Americans) who don't have huge amounts of money to save will have to pay higher taxes then they do now because they do not have as much discretionary income to put away.

The rich will become intolerably rich because the money they had used previously to pay taxes, they can put back into savings and investment. Billionaires will become mega billionaires. Millionaires will become megamillionaires. Everyone else will stay the same or decline.

The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. Sounds like class warfare to me.

12/1/2007 10:30:09 PM

Quote :

"Ryan, I dont believe that is the case. EVERYONE would take home what they make. I could choose how much taxes I pay by what I spend. Yes I make over 100k but I drive an eight year old car with 140k miles on it. I save my money, so later in life I can live of my savings. A girl at one of our offices just bought a new explorer, started complaining about her payments are half her take home pay, and then asked for raise to afford it. WHAT!!! She was an idiot buying that much of a car. People expect ruth's chris on a mcdonalds budget. The problem with debt is peoples spending, in my opinion."

eyedrb, I agree. But that girl you described is the typical American.

To bring this thread back to its original point, there was a very telling exchange in the debate the other night. A YouTube question asked about putting a man on Mars. Huckabee answered he would expand the program and ensure it happened. Tancredo jumped in afterward and said we talk about deficits and high taxes and such, but stuff like that program is the reason we have deficits and high taxes and such and that we can't give everyone everything they want. Tancredo answered in such a way that there was no criticism directed to Huckabee, but there easily is so upon analysis.

12/1/2007 10:42:20 PM

Quote :

"The reason the "fairtax" is unfair is because the wealthy are able to save considerably more."

The FairTax allows everyone to save more. The tax is only on new goods. Everything is taxed only once..so used items are tax-free. You buy a used car...no tax. You buy a used house...no tax. How does that hurt the middle class?

Scuba argues that the FairTax won't let the middle class save as much as the rich, and then goes on to point out how bad it would be anyway if everyone saved money.

Using 2005 figures (from the FairTax Book), a family of 3 could spend $1866 per month on NEW items tax-free. So they could spend $22,400 in a year on NEW items before they pay a single penny in federal tax. All the while, receiving all of their paycheck.. No fed income tax deduction and no Payroll deduction. And the payroll tax is incredibly regressive. Many pay more in payroll tax than income tax.

Now how does the middle class get screwed again?

And with the FairTax, you no longer have to spend money and time filling out income tax returns. Privacy returns to your personal finances. You are no longer punished for working harder and making more money. Young families, who are at their peak of income production, aren't stripped of that vital income from a tax that punishes them the most during the child-raising years. Through careful spending, they reap a whirlwind of tax savings.

How does that hurt the Middle class?

With the FairTax, families can pass along farms and businesses without having to sell them to pay death taxes. Foreign capital, free of any federal tax component, flows back into the U.S. bringing jobs and opportunities. Corporate taxes which were passed along to the public are eliminated. America becomes the tax haven of the world.

And that hurts the Middle Class how?

12/1/2007 11:39:16 PM