Huckabee campaigning for 23% sales tax

The Los Angeles Times ^ | December 24, 2007 | Janet Hook

[baybabe]

You’re certainly correct. It would be - plain and simple - still an income tax (and we’d still have the IRS with all its downside).

A flat tax would also not gain any tax revenue from the “underground economy” such as illegal aliens, drug dealers, etc. Nor would it help make our manufacturers more competitive overseas.

[Kellis91789]

I’m well aware. That’s why I say we need to reverse this trend of removing people from the tax roles.

I used to be a supporter of the FairTax, if you can call 5 years of donating money to FairTax.org and defending it here on FR “support”. I always qualified my support by saying I’d much prefer it without the prebate because it perpetuates the trend to growing number of non-taxpayer voters. It only recently occurred to me that it would actually worsen the situation as compared to the current system — because lower middle class people would be relieved of the SS/M tax as well. That is the straw that broke the camel’s back. People being eligible for SS/M benefits after never having paid a dime into it.

I still think the FairTax would be a positive development if we kept SS/M as-is and eliminated the prebate. Those two changes would give us a 12% FairTax rate that would be much more palatable to people and leave SS/M taxes and benefits to be dealt with as a separate issue.

[baybabe]

As has been pointed out many times (and by many on these threads over the years) - it isn’t a “$100 purchase”. It’s more like a “$128 purchase”. Get your concepts straight.

[Toddsterpatriot]

As has been pointed out many times (and by many on these threads over the years) - it isn’t a “$100 purchase”. It’s more like a “$128 purchase”.

Not when the purchase is made with already taxed savings. LOL!

Get your concepts straight.

As soon as you get better at math. LOL!

[baybabe]

Nonsense!!! The prebate is not an entitlement and it is paid to everyone - not just a certain group.

In addition the FairTax rewards (not punishes)success but some folks now benefiting from the Income Tax are fighting like hell to retain it since they’ve found how (they think) to game the system.

The IRS just loves to get those types to work with.

[baybabe]

Ah, we see, you’re advocating becoming a tax criminal. A truly grand way to enrich oneself while sticking it to other that are more honest!!

Looks like you’re one of those who game the system and therefore fight to keep it despite teetering on the legal edge. Might I get your name and SSN to send to a friend in government service?

[baybabe]

The bill is written so that the same amount of money that is presently taken from the income tax system is taken from the FairTax for the SS & MC entitlements.

You should read the bill where it is explained.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah, we see, you’re advocating becoming a tax criminal.

Put down the crack pipe.

Might I get your name and SSN to send to a friend in government service?

You bet. My name is Mike Huckabee. Don't forget to mention all the gifts I received from lobbyists while I was governor.

[baybabe]

Then your $2.3 million (plus) should do quite well in allowing you to live in high style under the FairTax since any interest earned or capital gains would not be taxed ... only the things spent for taxable consumption.

You should easily be able to generate $250,000 per year and even plug some of that back into your starting capital to do very well. Not all of what you spend out of that amount will be taxed in any event - but that's up to you.

[Daveinyork]

I have read the bill. I read the bill a long time ago. My questions remain. The bill does NOT address my concerns that we will not see a worse mess than the one we currently face. I’ve been hoping that FairTax proponants could address those concerns in this forum. The last time I addressed those concerns, some feeble attempts were made to insult me. At least this time around, I haven’t been flamed, yet.

[baybabe]

Nicely said!!!

[baybabe]

As several posters have told you, it’s NOT 30% and it’s NOT taxing wealth.

That’s why you can accumulate wealth under the FairTax if you’re reasonably frugal. Under the income tax doing so is very difficult and usually amounts to jumping through all sorts of government-controlled hoops and (it the person is so disposed) shading the law by merely ignoring it until you’re caught.

[baybabe]

Your own lack of understanding of what has been said is not “disingenuous” on the part of the FairTax or its supporters. They’ve always clearly pointed out what is taxed and the information is readily available from several places (the bill itself being a prime place).

Perhaps you should do a bit of your own research so you can see this.

[Tatze]

So, an item which costs $100 today will cost how much, after the FairTax becomes the law of the land?

A $100 item today includes about $22 of taxes paid at the various levels of manufacture and passed on to the consumer. So even today, your "after tax" dollars are paying for that.

The FairTax will remove that $22, lowering the cost to $78. Add the FairTax, and the cost is back up to $100 or $101. (I've seen studies that prices could drop even more putting the new cost even lower than $100)

The purchase price of an item includes the FairTax. So a receipt for a $100 item will show that the item cost $77 and the FairTax passed on to the Govt is $23.

Calculated inclusively, like the income tax replaced by the FairTax, $23 of $100 is 23%.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The FairTax will remove that $22, lowering the cost to $78. Add the FairTax, and the cost is back up to $100 or $101. (I've seen studies that prices could drop even more putting the new cost even lower than $100)

Great. Prices stay the same (or drop), I keep 100% of my paycheck and I get a prebate. What's not to love about that?

Oh, yeah, the government gets the same revenues too. I'm going to use my extra money to buy a car that runs on water and a perpetual motion machine.

[baybabe]

You think??? Really??? We’ve had since 1913 to correct this income tax mess and still we have it???

Don’t tell me it’s “do-able”. Clearly it isn’t.

[Tatze]

As has been pointed out many times (and by many on these threads over the years) - it isn’t a “$100 purchase”. It’s more like a “$128 purchase”.

Not when the purchase is made with already taxed savings. LOL!

I think that point was already made. You have to earn $128, which is taxed at 28%, in order to have $100 to purchase a $100 item.

[baybabe]

My apologies, the post was intended for the poster in #437.

[Tatze]

The “entire paycheck” you keep is roughly equivalent to your current take-home pay. Taxes currently withheld from your paycheck would not be added to your new paycheck.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think that point was already made. You have to earn $128, which is taxed at 28%, in order to have $100 to purchase a $100 item.

28% of $128 is $35.84.

I'm interested in my savings which have already been taxed by our current, evil system. These savings will now get hit for another 30% on my future purchases.