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 ...
Excellent, now the poor will have to pay taxes ...
Ewww thats more excessive than Canada or the United Kingdom.
Maybe a 10% GST tax, but 23% added to a state tax would cripple our economy. I would personally want to vote for Thompson or McCain.
24% total! That’s the sum total of all the taxes allowed. That’s why I said “get the book”. It’s not wrote by some PhD trying to confound anyone, it’s straight forward, solid logic.
In effect, they're playing the old profit vs. markup game, and a lot of silly sods are buying into it.
Quick example: Item costs $1.00 with the 'fair' tax applied. The Fair Taxers and their mythical 23% tell you gleefully that the item pre-tax costs just $0.77, thus 23%. However, if the pre-tax cost is $0.77, the $0.23 tax is a rate of 23/77, or 29.87%.
How appropriate that the Huckster likes this flim-flam, eh?
SEC. 101. INCOME TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 102. PAYROLL TAXES REPEALED.
SEC. 103. ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES REPEALED.
You may easily review the bill here by entering "HR 25" in the search box. Enjoy.
Ok. I’ll have to get it and read it.
Thanks
"Fair" is subjective - so have at it. But it will indeed lower taxes for anyone who currently participates legally and fully in today's income tax system.
Yes it would but you must realize the expense that would now be involved for individual states to maintain their income tax systems without being able to rely on the federal system for the necessary data.
Enjoy
Take a look at your paycheck if you work for someone else...I hope that's not from "the book". Either way, it fits my tag line to a T15.4% to social security till $97,500
6.2% for unemployment insurance
yeah, I didn’t get past that first sentence either. It was obviously going to be anti-conservative propaganda using the Huckster as the straw man to attack us.
Gitten rid of the IRS? Why thems figtin words!!!
Why anybody with any brams would know that!!!
(sacasm on)
OF course...complaining about "double taxation" of retirees is a little misleading. You are only going to get taxed on what you spend, and you will benefit financially from having the hand of feds removed from the pockets of all of us.
Frankly, as the power of the government increases, spending will go up and they will find a way to relieve you of your comfortable retirement (shame on you for having more than social security provides!). So it is in your interest to campaign for this change in the way the tax system works.
Here's a thought: It's great you survived the oppressive burden of the state to reach retirement. Tell me, how much larger would your poke be if you had not had to pay income tax to get to it? Even with the fair tax? I bet you got cheated, buddy.
You didn’t answer my question. If we all pay an average of 40% now, then how can we raise the same amount of cash with a sales tax of 23%? Who is going to make up the difference?
And what makes you think Congress wouldn’t turn it into something incredibly complex, or raise rates later?
It's actually quite simple to understand.
23% inclusive is equivalent to 29.87 exclusive. If your point is that this is intended to fool anyone, well, who? Most of them are still in pre-K.
The best way to analyze the tax is to compare it to now. How would you do that?
Merry Christmas! Great present to yourself!
“Yes it would but you must realize the expense that would now be involved for individual states to maintain their income tax systems without being able to rely on the federal system for the necessary data.”
Would this also eliminate states ‘borrowing’ from the Federal government to increase their budgets?
If it did, then I would be all for it because, according to what has been explained, they would have a ‘set’ amount that they would receive and would have to live within their budget amounts.
First repeal the 16th amendment. Then let’s talk.
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.