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 ...
Now that I am back from the nonsense of life...(yuck) there is no tax structure that is perfect. Overall, the Fair Tax makes a lot of sense.
As far as my situation (in anything, let alone this one) is concerned, I realize it’s rather unique (again, it’s pretty much everything, let alone God forsaken taxation). So, anytime you want to wheel and deal with taxation or any other nonsense (i.e. Iowa and New Hampshire being the tell-all of the ‘08 election, immigration/illegal immigration, fat-headed political punditry...), let me know or however it would be said in San Francisco/Oakland (assumption through your moniker).
...and stop cussing at your husband. :)
Sorry, but no - your effective tax rate is nothing like zero today. You merely don't understand what an effective tax rate is. Nor will the effective tax rate be 23% under the FairTax ... for many folks it's something like half that.
You don't seem to realize that you've actually had to earn a good bit more that the doctor's bill presently by adding to that amount the rate for your income tax and your payroll taxes. All of those taxes boost the amount that you've had to pay to be able to pay your doctor. That ain't zero!
All of the onerous “prove that you’re innocent while we prosecute and penalize your guilt” would still be in place along with the $11B IRS expenditure each year for that purpose in our police-empowered arm of the government.
With the FairTax the normal tax collection and reporting would be done by the retailers involved forwarding the funds to the individual state, and then the state would likewise collect and forward the funds to the Treasury Department (since there would no more be an IRS). The merchant and the state are both paid to perform this service as there is no unfunded mandate in the tax collection/forwarding process as there is under the income tax where employers must jump through all sorts of hoops to perform such income tax functions without recompense.
There are various penalties in the FairTax bill but the onus of enforcing the tax would be upon each particular state ... and it would be done against the merchant rather than against an individual taxpayer.
Isn’t that just ;like a guy, though? - I never cuss at my husband unless he needs it (and probably even less than I should due to my own sweet, forgiving nature). Your wife is probably the same - just ask her!
As for the bay thing, I’m not a Left Coaster at all but a Right Coaster (we have some bodies of water here, too - but right now it's mostly snow). You must have missed a reference in one of my posts to Beantown - which to some is aka Boston.
Read my lips. My effective tax rate on doctor visits is zero.
You don't seem to realize that you've actually had to earn a good bit more that the doctor's bill presently by adding to that amount the rate for your income tax and your payroll taxes.
You're right, my effective tax rate on doctor visits is 1.45%.
You never explained why the doctor will cut his price. Take your time.
Well, the last time I checked Boston does have a bay (or a harbor). There’s something about that tea party from many moons ago, and yes I did miss the bay-Beantown-Tom Brady-Boston-Boston College...reference. You’re better off in Boston than San Francisco.
You had to mention snow, didn’t you? It’s suppose to snow here in KC-Kansas City-Cowtown-Original Las Vegas tomorrow. I enjoy snow about as much as I like the Internal Revenue Code. I remember that piece of dubris from university days.
Well, I guess it is winter, so what can we expect.
Have fun and I’ll talk to you later.
If under the income tax you earned $129.87 and had that reduced by non-refunded deductions, your net would be $100 which you could hand to the good doctor. The effective tax rate on that would be 23% (and it’s not reduced as an effective rate by any deductions or the prebate).
You would have paid the doctor as though you gave him $129.87 and he stripped off your $29.87 tax and sent it to the IRS for you. That would be MORE than you’d pay under the FairTax since your effective FairTax rate would be less.
As discussed (and stipulated by both sides over the past 5 or so years oin these threads) there would most likely be at least a 9% price reduction with the FairTax which would put the doctor’s bill at no more than $91. If (like most taxpayers) your FairTax effective tax rate is, say, 10% it would make your total doctor bill including the tax $101 for you to earn rather than the $129.87 you had to earn under the income tax ... in effect your purchasing power has improved by the difference between $129.87 and $101.00.
Google flexible spending account.
As discussed (and stipulated by both sides over the past 5 or so years oin these threads) there would most likely be at least a 9% price reduction with the FairTax which would put the doctor’s bill at no more than $91.
I don't stipulate that the doctor would reduce his rate. What screen name did you use on these threads 5 years ago?
If (like most taxpayers) your FairTax effective tax rate is, say, 10%
I don't stipulate that either.
Oh, yeah - a T party. The Boston civic transport system is call the “T” but I think you mean the other sort of T. I missed that one by a bit, but sometime remind me to tell you about the Great Molasses Flood that happened a bit later.
I’m afraid the Left Coast is WAY too liberal for me and mine but I once passed through the KC environs and thought it looked like a great shopping area (the Mission area off of Wornall Road IIRC).
TTYL ...
I’ve been lurking for a long time and only recently started posting so I had no screenname to use on earlier threads.
What have you calculated your effective FairTax rate to be? Could you give us the particulars so we can know if you’ve done a reasonably accurate job?
LOL!
Many of the FairTax supporters felt the reduction would be greater but to move the discussion along also settled on using the 9%.
Oh, they felt. Well, I couldn't ask for more proof than that.
I’ve been lurking for a long time and only recently started posting so I had no screenname to use on earlier threads.
LOL!
What have you calculated your effective FairTax rate to be?
For medical services, my rate rises from 1.45% to 30%. Great deal for me!
Does “LOL” mean “Lick Our Lollipop”???
There were many discussions offering numerical analysis as to why the believed it should more while you’ve offered no such thing except to state an obviously wildly erroneous effective income tax rate. Talk about proof!!!
And as pointed out, your effective tax rate under the FairTax is less than under the income tax.
You're wrong.
Your effective tax rate right now is FAR more than either that
My effective rate for doctor visits is 1.45%.
or than what it wold be under the FairTax.
Because that's what you feel? Lick our Lollipop!
Show us how you arrive at 1.45% effective tax rate. I’ll be glad to show you how it’s incorrect since you haven’t understood it so far.
Perhaps you don’t know what an effective tax rate is.
You bet, right after you show me that the doctor must reduce his fee after the Fairtax.
Yes, I have heard of the Great Molasses Flood...clocked for doing 35 MPH in a 20 MPH zone about ninety years ago. I never knew the Boston authorities were equipped with radar guns in the “Teens.”
Boston was getting cremated with molasses while Kansas City was starting to enjoy the “benefits” of the Cosa Nostra—Pendergast, the Sevillas, and (of course) Truman. Yes, THAT Truman.
The Mission district is kind of a cute area, but downtown is finally starting to show some life-so what if we were dead for thirty-five years. Well, better late than never.
Oh, speaking of transportation, how’s the “Teddy (Kennedy) Tunnel?” Didn’t it have a $2 billion budget which ended up about $10 billion over budget?
Boston seems to have a lot of redeeming qualities, but of course, you have the Kennedys and we have a mayor who told La Raza to go to hell. However, we also have dead Democrats who are still voting...and voting...whith a fresh four inches of snow surrounding their tombstones.
It’s good to hear the downtown is shaping up in KC. Last time I was there it surely needed it and the Mission district had some really nice Christmas decor - guess that tells you what time of year I was there.
Oh, yes - I remember old “Hairy S.” as he was sometimes called. And don’t forget - we had good old Mitty R. as gov (BEFORE he tried to make the big time in DC). Pols are a pain no matter what it seems.
None of that, however, affects the calculation of your effective tax rate ... so show us how you arrived at 1.45% under the present tax system. I’d feel truly enlightened to find out.
There is a little bit of "follow the money" that should be applied here. Fair tax would really disrupt the "tax professional" occupation. Many of them would be out of work. The rest would need to learn a whole new set of rules. Do you suppose this might influence their opinion of the Fair Tax?
They are right! On this tax the poorer you are the worse it hurts.
It is my understanding that rebates of the fair tax on the poverty level income would eliminate the regressive nature of the tax. With this in place, I don't understand how it hurts the "poor". They would pay no tax. Those a little better off than "poor" would.
Excellent! I love it when my costs rise 30%. Maybe more, because the doctor will now pay a 30% tax on his office rent. Sign me up!
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.