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 ...
I think you are referencing the Country Club Plaza, which is somewhat famous for their Christmas lights. It’s funny how it was the first drive-up shopping district-—that Spanish shopping mall. That area is about three miles south of downtown.
Thank God we don’t have any tunnels like the Teddy tunnel. I can’t blame you for avoiding that unnatural disaster like the Bubonic. Maybe Ted needs some molasses-based mash to fill his DC liquor trought. While you’re at it, throw the Kennedys in the harbor. This would save everyone from their misery.
And, as I've pointed out before your bill would not be costing you an extra "30%" (the erroneous figure you try to keep flashing before everyone's eyes) but your effective FairTax tax rate which would be much less than 23%. You can't seem to understand that the point of sale payment is not your actual cost. That's only what you pay - and you get some portion bask via the prebate making your effective tax rate - and therefore you real cost - much less.
You "anti" types seem to love the throw out these noncoherent things that are grossly untrue and I don't know whether you are really that ignorant (ignorant, not stupid) or not. Mostly I think not.
As for the Teddy Tunnel, the whole effort was locally called "The Big Dig" and it continued for years and years. It must have been quite profitable for some.
Actually I'm afraid that if any of the Kennedys were thrown in the harbor (though richly deserved) it might spoil the tea there - but keep up the warm thoughts.
I'm glad you stopped insisting prices must fall.
With the increase in purchasing power for his business
Yeah, paying higher rents will certainly increase his buying power. And all other prices will remain the same, right? You know, drop by 23% and then add the 30% tax. LOL!
And, as I've pointed out before your bill would not be costing you an extra "30%"
You're right, going from $100 to $130 is not an extra 30%, it's an extra 23%. LOL!
Your “paying higher rents” is merely your desire as to what would happen. He may very well (and probably will) be paying lower rents. But just keep warping your interpretation of what you hope will occur - maybe that will make it come true. That’s called the “sky is falling” method of determining the unknown future despite evidence to the contrary.
And you demonstrate that you still don’t understand effective tax rates or how to derive them, nor do you ever present your detailed determination of what you claimed was a 1.45% effective tax rate with your “doctor” under the income tax
You said they will fall. Like when you said my $100 doctor visit will cost less than $100.
Overall I believe they will.
Well, that's good enough for me. LOL!
Your “paying higher rents” is merely your desire as to what would happen.
No, that is the FairTaxer desire to charge 30% on services like rent.
He may very well (and probably will) be paying lower rents.
Show me the math where adding a 30% tax on rents makes the rent lower.
It reminds me of what things must have been like here during the twenties and thirties under Pendergast, the Cosa Nostra, and the mysterious Democrat machine...but at least we got the Liberty Memorial (WWI) out of it.
It’s colder than a well digger’s posterior here today—a balmy thirteen degrees with a wind chill of four. Unfortunately, I had to go out in the nonsense for some prescription eye ware...it was just great.
Good luck to your Patriots tomorrow, as I am a Wes Welker supporter. Talk to you later.
You also fail to grasp that you pay more for the things you buy presently by having to earn far more that $100 to pay for what is now a $100 doctor bill and that your real cost is far higher than your "$100".
I currently pay no income tax on the money I use to pay doctor bills. So you'd be raising my effective tax rate.
You also fail to grasp that you pay more for the things you buy presently by having to earn far more that $100 to pay for what is now a $100 doctor bill
No. You're wrong. Still.
Since you seemingly don’t know what an effective tax rate is there’s no way you can tell that - and it’s certainly not zero.
I pay no income tax on doctor visits. Now. Today.
Incorrect ... you certainly do but do not realize it. (Keep in mind you even claimed your “effectice tax rate” on them was 1.45% - not that you’d know what that really is as you’ve illustrated).
I pay no income tax on doctor visits. Look up Flexible Spending Accounts. You won't sound so stupid.
Incorrect again ... you’ve already paid taxes on the extra amount you’ve earned to pay the doctor and you pay the embedded costs on taxation in his prices as well.
In addition, you’ve never answered my request to show you 1.45% effective tax rate calculation.
Um...its not a tax hike. It will eliminate INCOME tax, and you will only be taxed on purchases made.
I paid no income tax on the money I spend on doctor visits.
You mean like the 30% tax he pays on his rent? Oh, right, he'll pay that under the FairTax.
Anyone who believes that the income tax will go away and *stay* away believes,I fear,in the Easter Bunny as well.Do you *really* think that the RATS...or the *moderates" among us...will allow the income tax to *truly* die?
I don't.Not for a minute!
That’s just your lack of knowledge of how taxation works.
Whether you realize it or not in one way or another you have paid taxes on that money - just like on other money under the income tax system. You even claimed it was at a 1.45% effective tax rate if I recall.
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.