Posted on 12/24/2007 7:55:05 AM PST by Alex Murphy
WASHINGTON — Mike Huckabee, one of the most conservative Republicans in the 2008 presidential race, has embraced one of the most radical ideas on the campaign trail: a plan to abolish all federal income and payroll taxes and replace them with a single 23% national sales tax.
The idea -- dubbed the "fair tax" by proponents -- has been a political asset for Huckabee; its well-organized backers have helped catapult him from the back of the presidential pack to its top tier.
Sales tax proponents have tapped into seething voter hostility toward the Internal Revenue Service to become a below-the-radar political force, popping up at campaign events and candidate forums in Iowa and elsewhere.
The efforts on Huckabee's behalf by sales tax advocates helped spur his surprise second-place showing in an August Iowa straw poll -- the breakthrough that marked the beginning of his rise in the state and nationwide.
He is the only major presidential candidate to make the idea central to his campaign. "The first thing I'd love to do as president: Put a 'going out of business' sign on the Internal Revenue Service," he said at one debate.
Some wonder, however, whether his embrace of the plan eventually could turn into a liability.
The sales tax proposal has been around for years but languished on the fringes of practical politics and policy. Tax professionals generally regard the idea as impractical, regressive and even "crackpot," as one critic puts it.
It has gone nowhere in Congress. The 2005 Presidential Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform soundly rejected the idea. And many politicians shy away from it because it is easy for opponents to portray it as a huge tax increase -- as Democrats did in a 2006 Senate race in South Carolina.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The Huckster is only for the “Fair Tax” as a red herring, to divert attention away from his own record as a tax raiser.
If we are all paying 40% now, how does a 23% tax replace all that money?
Congress tinkered with the income tax - what makes you think they wouldn’t tinker with the sales tax & ‘pre-bates’?
Scumbag!
#8 They are right! On this tax the poorer you are the worse it hurts.
And here is another one who hasn't read the book.
Since every single US citizen (and those here legally) would get the rebate (read about it in the book) then they would NOT be worse off then they are today. AND in fact the entire US economy would take off like a rocket and any poor people who didn't take advantage of it are never going to be helped by "redistribution and socialism"
And here is another who hasn't read the book Gay State Conservative post #10 it doesn't increase your taxes if you illimanate all other taxes. and the IRS who doesn't need to know your business to tax you. you just pay it when you buy things. You don't want to pay taxes then don't buy things. the rich will pay more, the poor less. How simple does it have to be for "We the people" to take our power back.
They won't know what to talk about if they can't spend all their time taxing this little group here and that little one there. The taxes will come in the same or as I believe, MUCH GREATER and then all we have to do is get them to quit spending so much.
Also it doesn't go into effect until the Constutional revoking of the 16th amendment.
After spending 20 million dollars of researching how to collect the same amount of taxes in a less invasive way there are answers to your questions. or are ya'll intentionally doing your best to keep the power with the politicians?
as for the retired you will pay embedded taxes on goods till the day you die. This is just a more honest way.
16% for the fed, 8% for the state and local, is the rough proposal.
23%?
A bit excessive. Consumptio, other than essential articles would fall off significantly and hurts the folks most in need of tax relief - the low to ultra-low income earners.
The law of un-intended consequences would take hold in a HUGH and SERIES way.
Amen!
THe first three sections of this nrst are:
SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.
There is also a sister bill to amend the constitution to repeal the 16th amendment [hjr 45 IIRC].
Merry Christmas!
What people dont understand is that under a retail sales tax, EVERYONE pays. Illegals, tourists from foriegn countries pay, and on down the line. If you think for one minute that the illegal issue will be resolved, I got ocean front property to sell you in AZ.
Do illegals pay their share of tax now?
Yes..I pay about 12% in income taxes now if FICA is included and this will be an increase to me...maybe. Because after I include ALL taxes, I pay in excess of 60% of my income in taxes. That is- State, local, and federal. Gasoline, Phone, and on and on.
Yes , this is a totally inaccurate hit piece on the Fair Tax .
It is the effective rate you have some control over - by saving and investing you can reduce your effective rate. You don't have that choice under the income tax.
The rebate, if it survives, would indeed affect the effective rate.
However, the point the tag lines makes is that marginal rates differ under the income tax - not so under the nrst.
This unified marginal rate has the effect of uniting ALL taxpayers against increases and in support of decreases.
Merry Christmas!
Without repeal of that amendment, there's no way I could support it.
John Engler lowered taxes. Cant help it if two-penny-Jenny and the Rats insist on increased spending and more taxes.
If anything we know the bad effects of higher taxes, and this Fair Tax is not fair, and will not lower taxes. It is just another smoke and mirrors game. Eliminate the IRS yet turn every store keeper in to a tax agent? Is their time free?
Please see The FairTax: What’s in it for the states?
First, the taxable income base is smaller than the consumption base so the rate can obviously be lower. Second, illegals don't pay their share, criminals don't pay their share, and current tax cheats aren't paying their share either. THe nrst remedies those situaitons by collecting when people spend, not when they earn.
“16% for the fed, 8% for the state and local, is the rough proposal.’
Sales tax or income tax?
That’s where I’m confused because I currently pay 7.25% sales tax (state and local), so at 8% sales tax would be an increase.
If the combines sales and state income tax is only 8$, then yes, I would see a drop.
And my current Federal tax is 11.8% so 16% would be an increase as well.
I’m probably looking at this the wrong way.
Like I said, I’m just a little confused about how this is going to work.
Yep, and I have to run and go do my shopping! Merry Christmas, to all, even the "so called Fair Taxers"
Te owners are already tax agents, they have to tag everybody’s paycheck already. Simpler would be less time involved.
“A FAR more likely outcome would be that states would conform their sales tax base to the new federal sales tax base and raise the same amount of money they currently do with the sales tax alone and with a much lower overall tax rate.”
Ok. Thanks.
But wouldn’t that be predicated on the States actually abolishing the income tax, and not just keeping it as is?
Living in New York State, and considering who (whom?) we have running the government here, I wouldn’t be too sure they wouldn’t do both.
Notwithstanding a reduction in spending, the economic picture for an nrst is great - if that money isn't spent, where is it?
Traditionally US folks think spending is the only way to stimulate economic growth - not so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.