Fox News Turns On Mike Huckabee And Tries To Kill His Presidential Campaign

Well, Rubio is a good-looking guy.

The fair tax is too open to manipulation. The "prebate" that is included to make it progressive already adds in that unfairness and is a gravy bowl for corruption and manipulation. The very word "Fair" in the title is a pretty good indication that it is just another way to keep the bureaucrats in there redistributing income. The horrific rate of 23̀ is a strong indication that it is designed to preserve the totalitarian bureaucracy that we have almost attained.

Bookmark

“Make the Huckster look bad”? The double talking skills this Bible Thumper has acquired over his years of bam boozling the elderly out of their social security checks selling tickets to paradise will shame any news boy that inherited his job.

Well we can’t have anything like that now can we? :-)

Try Steve Forbes Flat Tax.

Good.

Thanks for your reply. One of the great things about our system is our right to express our view. I understand your objection to manipulation but have a different take on the subject. Any form of tax is subject to manipulation and the more complicated and distant from the people, the greater the potential for corruption. Our current tax system which is based strictly on income is a world class model of corruption, inefficiency, and unfairness. It causes great distortions in our economy with tax policy being a major motivation in both business and individual decision making. True, most of us have learned to cope with the system and have structured our business and personal affairs to deal with it, but so many decisions are based on the tax implications rather than efficiency.

Granted “Fair Tax” may be a misleading name as no tax is fair, but a sales tax involves everyone, not just the decreasing number of individuals and businesses who can't find a way out. The income tax is for the most part a stealth tax collected through payroll deductions while the sales tax is paid at the time of ever purchase. Being taxed at each purchase is an ongoing reminder of the cost of government which should make individual more reluctant to support tax and spend politicians. Since the tax is collected by the existing state agencies and rebated to the federal government, the dynamic between the state and federal government is, to an extent, altered in favor of the state. As to the prebate, it is the same concept as the current standard and dependent deductions. It is the same for all income or wealth levels but, of course, is more important to those at the low end of the scale.

I suppose that manipulation is possible, but not so much as under the income tax. I look at it as allowing more freedom to the individual. If an individual made a choice to spend all his money on new items, he would be taxed accordingly. On the other hand, if that individual chose to save and invest his money, he would not be taxed on the money invested or earned on that investment until and unless he later decided to spend it. If a person wanted to leave an estate, it would not be taxed until and unless his heirs decided to spend it.

Regardless of what percentage rate is necessary to generate the same level of revenue, a tax system that removed that money from the economy at the spending side rather than at the earning and investing side would generate greater economic activity and thus make more wealth available. As with the current system, there would be individual winners and losers, but the economy as a whole be more efficient.

Of course, this is all just a academic exercise as there is virtually no chance that the politicians would ever give up the power and control they have with an income tax. Neither would those who have spent great effort and resources carving out a favored position under the system. The current system did not create itself and those who benefit from it are not likely to give it up.