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 ...
Those deceptive US T-Bills.... LOL
This is one for the ages... on par with 100-22=88...
Merry Christmas indeed!
Like untaxing estates?
Like untaxing earnings?
Like untaxing their childrens' earnings, SS, and estates?
Like untaxing their grandchildrens' earnings, SS, and estates?
Selling a bond with one rate and then giving a worse rate? No, they give a better rate. I guess it's not like the FairTax. LOL!
The 9% is the amount of business taxes in retail prices.So you say.
ff
That’s what Dimples and I agreed on.
You just don't know what to do that the inclusive rate is normal in many areas and you can't figure out what to say - keep trying lol.
Does that mean you will refrain from posting pornographic pics to her? Big of you. Although it did get removed very quickly last time.
But you said.... Their 5% bond is really a 5.26% bond!
This is too much!
Oh wow! That is so “small world”. I think the first Saratoga was a CV-3?
Well this is where I kind of get away from the typical senior. I do not travel much, hardly ever eat out unless my son takes me or maybe I go out with the girls from work, and live very frugally. I was raised without a lot of money and even though I have some now, to me it is to be used to generate income. The principal must never be touched. That’s pretty old-fashioned but that’s just the way I am.
I don’t mind paying taxes. I have for years. I do object to having taxes increased, however, to pay for other people who are too lazy to work or for frivolous pork-barrel projects. There is so much money wasted, it is literally a crime. Get that under control first and then fix the income tax problem.
The “embedded tax costs” YOU refer to are the sum of any wages changes and price changes. Jorgenson said the sum is 22%.I'm referring to what YOU said were embedded tax costs at a time when you said there would also be 100% paychecks with 22% price reductions...
Jorgenson said (10 yrs ago) they were initially 20% (producer prices, not retail prices)including employee paid taxes...IOW, no 100% paychecks in his study.
Jorgenson:
5. Since producers would no longer pay taxes on profits or other forms of capital income under the NRST and workers would no longer pay taxes on wages, prices received by producers, shown in the sixth chart, would fall by an average of twenty percent.....Merry Christmas
I bought $100 of goods and the sales tax added was $30, instead of the advertised 23%. That is an outrage.
OK, please explain why I am wrong. Why take your vacation, or build your vacation home in California, when you can instead go to nearby Mexico or Canada and avoid a 38% tax?Sure - glad to. First of all it isn't a 38% tax. In fact it's a lot less than the 23% tax inclusive marginal rate in the FairTax bill. If you figure out your probable FairTax effective tax rate (the rate you'll actually pay under the bill) it will be much less than 20% and quite possibly less than 15%. Keep in mind the earlier list I gave of the many things that are not taxed under the FairTax.
And, if you go to those neighboring countries don't forget that under the income tax you've already pain a hefty chunk in income tax to Uncle - almost undoubtedly even at a higher effective tax rate than would you under the FairTax. The same goes for the money taxed under the present system that you would have used to buy a house there.
Under the FairTax you wouldn't have the expense of traveling or moving to the other country but only the lowered effective tax rate for any qualifying similar consumption. Most likely the travel/lodging/living costs in the other country would be more than the FairTax on the same items here (which would be cheaper here since the dollar is down against almost all currencies - making things "more expensive" there). Also if you wish to stay there permanently you'd most likely need to get a job there (and pay the taxes there).
Net gain??? I suspect not!!
Would you rather see the income taxes boosted rather than paying a lower effective tax rate under the FairTax since, despite the naysayers on these threads, most taxpayers effective tax rate will be less under the FairTax than at present under the income tax. Are you saying you’d rather have your income taxes increased??
I’d prefer to see SS and NC BOTH abolished (period). If one or both were done it would lower the FairTax marginal rate well below 20% tax inclusive. Do I think it (abolishment) likely at all??? No.
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.