It seems clear that some of Huckabee’s ideas do not withstand scrutiny and it seems obvious that some his ideas, if brought to light, would simply be rejected as implausible by a majority of voters. Realclearpolitics, which averages a number of polls, shows that Mike Huckabee is now ahead of Mitt Romney in the Iowa polls 29% to 24%. Huckabee’s dramatic rise in the Iowa polls has brought more attention to his campaign — and to his ideas and comments.
His Personal Faith
Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, recently said this about his rise in the Iowa polls: “There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people. That’s the only way that our campaign can be doing what it’s doing. And I’m not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite.”
Michael Barone of U.S. News says that in Iowa Huckabee, “seems to draw most of his support from the roughly 40 percent of caucus goers who are evangelical Protestants. They account for two thirds of his support in the latest ABC/Washington Post poll.” Huckabee’s loaves and fishes belief may help him in Iowa, but it’s hard for me to imagine that America really wants a president who thinks as Huckabee does about personal faith.
The video of Huckabee making this statement is posted on Liberal Values Blog. Ron Chusid who writes for that blog said, “This is nothing new among the Republicans. After all, George Bush believes God chose him to be President and advised him to go to war in Iraq.”
Evolution and Teaching Creationism in Public Schools
Huckabee is an outspoken creationist and feels that the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools. Yahoo News writes; “Huckabee, at a dinner in Des Moines, told reporters that the theory of intelligent design, whose proponents believe an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some complex and orderly features of the universe, should be taught in schools as one of many viewpoints. ‘I don’t think schools ought to indoctrinate kids to believe one thing or another,’ he said.”
I don’t think America wants a president that feels that teaching authentic science is “indoctrination.”
The Fair Tax
Huckabee advocates doing away with our income tax system — abolishing the IRS — and raising revenue for the government though a national sales tax. This idea has been around for a while and has attracted a core group of avid believers. Some avid “fair tax” believers are probably in Iowa and are supporting Huckabee. But the fair tax is really a nutty idea that cannot withstand any reasonable scrutiny.
The Wall Street Journal calls the fair tax “the most radical reform imaginable” in an article entitled, “The Huckabee Contradiction.” Excerpts from the article:
- The fair tax has been knocking around GOP precincts for years and has been heavily promoted by Texas millionaire Leo Linbeck, among others. We’ve heard their pitch in our offices and admire their passion. Their concept is to junk the federal tax code — payroll, income, corporate, Social Security, everything — and substitute a 23% national retail sales tax on nearly all goods and services. But while proponents use that 23% figure as an easier political sell, the rate is closer to 30% when it’s calculated like any other sales tax, with the levy on top of the price. State sales levies would go on top of that.
- The political risk, given the nature of government, is that we’d end up with both an income tax and a national sales tax. Europe, here we come.
- Mr. Huckabee has latched onto the fair tax in part to show his antitax bona fides — which is necessary given his mixed tax and spending record during his decade in Little Rock. The Club for Growth has documented that record, with prejudice.
- One problem with a national sales tax is that its rate would have to be very high to raise enough money to fund the government. A rate of 30%, or even 23%, is high enough to invite its own major enforcement problems, so the tax police would still be very much with us.
- As a political matter, the fair tax would offer a bull’s-eye for Democrats, who would love to run against a plan that would instantly make most purchases 30% more expensive. Though the fair tax includes a complicated rebate system to shield the working poor, a levy on consumption would nonetheless hit hard the young, middle-income families that Mr. Huckabee is courting. It would also tax medical services and home prices, sure to be flashpoints this election season in particular.
- In 2004, Democrats came from nowhere to nearly beat South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint by pounding his support for the fair tax. His opponent said it would raise taxes on 95% of state residents, and Mr. DeMint had to disavow his support. In the American system, such a radical change as the fair tax is possible only in a crisis, and we aren’t living in one now.
- Mr. Huckabee nonetheless writes that “when” his reform is enacted, “it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.” That glib naivete should provide some indication of how seriously the former Governor has thought through the political and policy complications of his biggest idea — and also explain why, until recently, Mr. Huckabee was considered an implausible candidate.
It seems clear that, if Huckabee continues to gain political prominance, his views about his personal faith, about teaching creationism in schools and about the “fair tax” will increasingly come under greater scrutiny. I thinking that the more that is known about Huckabee’s ideas, the more the mainstream will rise in opposition to Huckabee.
Let’s not fail to point out that Reverend Huckabee’s quote about his rise in the polls also demonstrates an appalling ignorance of the foundation of the religion he professes. There is no passage in the Bible about a “little boy” feeding the multitudes with two fish and five loaves–there is an account of Jesus, who at the time would have been over 30 years of age, doing so.
I guess he’s incompetent as a Biblical scholar, his first profession. Or else he’s not careful in choosing words for his discourse, another fatal flaw in anyone who would engage in international diplomacy.
I sure hope that the American people aren’t as ignorant as the people that write these types of so-called articles. Mr. Bock has done NO research of his own and has simply quoted those who are already either mis-informed or flat out lying. What you really need to ask yourselves is WHY these people would be so against a plan like the Fair Tax? There are MANY in the Republican party, especially those very wealthy who have Special Favor from those who write the current Tax Code, who will do everything in their power to see that a plan like the Fair Tax is not implemented. And who does Mr. Bock use for his information sources….none other than “The Wall Street Journal” & “The Club for Growth”. Hmmmm I wonder why some of those at the WSJ & “The Club For Growth” would be against the Fair Tax? Could it be that those behind those two organizations have A LOT to loose if the Fair Tax is implemented?
A perfect example of the lies that even some Republican’s are willing to tell to see that the Fair Tax is dismissed, is what happened when the President’s (Bush) Advisory on Tax reform assessed the Fair Tax, the actual numbers and calculations that had been researched by leading economists and scholars, backed up by millions of dollars of research, were completely changed and manipulated by the TAX LOBBYISTS in Washington, to the point that when the commission reviewed the plan, it could no longer truly be considered the Fair Tax plan…it was something else, manipulated to get an unfavorable review.
The FACT is that over 75 WELL renowned Economists and Economic Scholars across the country have signed on in support of the Fair Tax. It is one of the most researched Tax Plans ever! It’s numbers are SOLID, and will help EVERY American succeed, and prosper! It will put the United States back at the top of the Economic Ladder where they belong. The Very Rich and Politically powerful will fight tooth and nail to see that it’s put to death, because they fully understand that those nice tax loopholes will be GONE, and the power that politicians get from the manipulations in the current Tax Code will be GONE.
I ask that those who have read this article to not repeat the ignorance of the author, and READ the Fair Tax book, and other associated information on the plan. Look at the calculations of the economists that have worked on and approve of the plan. Any question that you might have, HAS AN ANSWER..if you look just a little bit. The more you look at the TRUE numbers, I’m confident, the more you will believe that this is a great plan. There are a few honest people out there who have legitimate questions, BUT MOST HAVE AN AGENDA FOR OPPOSING THE FAIR TAX. Be sure to question what that agenda might be when your reading the mis-information they are putting out there.
Dr. Ruddick,
Huckabee, in the quote above, when he says, “It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people,” is claiming that it was God’s personal intervention that has caused his poll numbers to rise, that God has performed a supernatural miracle to advance and bless his political career — even as God performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes to advance and bless Jesus’ ministry. My point is that most voters, when they think about it, will tend to reject a candidate what would make such a claim.
Dennis Keller,
Thanks for the comments.
I described the “fair tax” as nutty for several reasons. First, it seems impossible to me that this tax plan would ever work to generate sufficient revenue; second, this tax plan reverses a long held consensus view that our tax system should be progressive; and third, it seems unreasonable to think that our huge system of taxation could ever be so transformed.
My point in my post is that Huckabee’s views are much more radical than is typically known and that his views, because they are radical, will eventually be rejected. I said, “The more that is known about Huckabee’s ideas, the more the mainstream will rise in opposition to Huckabee.”
One of the radical Huckabee ideas I cite is the “fair tax.” Certainly, you must agree that, however you analyze it, the “fair tax” is a radical idea.
I will grant your point that it is reasonable to think that people who are comfortable with the status quo are likely to oppose radical changes to the status quo. I’ll grant your point that some people are opposed to the “fair tax” based on selfish motives. But, a “fair tax” advocate, whatever the motives of the messenger, must answer the messenger — not simply attack the messenger.
It seems to me, that the Wall Street Journal article I quoted raised some important questions about the “fair tax,” that Huckabee supporters should be aware of. You say that any every question about the “fair tax” has an answer. You have an opportunity, if you wish, to answer the questions raised in the Wall Street Journal and post your answers here at DaytonOS. I am interested in hearing an objective analysis of the questions about the “fair tax” that this Wall Street article asks.
I refuse to be concerned about the personal religious beliefs of any candidate, Romney, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, etc. If they talk about it, I’m not listening. If they don’t talk about it, that’s ok by me.
I do believe that we need to radically change our tax system. The way it is now, millions of dollars of lobbying and bribery are paid by those seeking special tax breaks. I favor a change that would eliminate Congress’ ability to use the public fisc to extract such payments and to buy votes. BTW, it is my understanding that under the flat tax the top wage earners would still pay a disproportially hate percentage of taxes.
Dear Mr. Bock,
I would have replied to this sooner but I am just recently read the article you wrote in response to the WallStreet Journals blasting of Huckabee’s views and in particular their assessment of the FairTax he supports. In response to all this you received a rebuttal from a gentlemen and as a result of that you challenged him to answer those questions raised concerning the FairTax. I would like to tear apart what this Mr. Bartlett implied concerning the FairTax and show that he did not read the FairTax book nor does he understand it; regardless of his credentials of Treasury of economics policy.
Mr. Bartlett wrote that the concept was “ originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990’s”…which is balderdash! The concept originated from several businessmen sitting about discussing their problems with running their businesses in the black with the least amount of tax interference. Their wives, bored of the dinner table babble, encouraged them to write a book about their new tax plan. This tax plan was then submitted for research by several Universities and famed economists at a cost of approximately 22 million dollars and over 25 years. Of all the various alternative feasible tax plans, it was decidedly the best and fairest plan studied. The book was finally written by Senators John Linder and Neal Boortz. (He did get the representation and legislation numbers right.)
Mr. Bartlett went on to say..”Calculating it the conventional way that every other sales tax is calculated, with the tax on top of the price, yields a rate of 30%…” Here Mr. Bartlett shows his ignorance and lack of understanding of the FairTax. In everything we buy there is the hidden tax. This hidden tax is the taxes the originator of the product and all middlemen pay to get the product to the retail level. This hidden tax would not be there at the retail since they did not pay this tax to begin with and the approximate tax would still be 23%. And please do not give the argument that theses taxes would be left in and taken as profit since this concept of free market was proven with the airlines when they were left to free market forces. Their prices dropped drastically with the competition.
He goes on to assert that the government would have to pay taxes to itself on all its purchases of goods and services…Yes…he is right but not at 30% as he implies. He then convolutes his concept of the FairTax by explaining what the government would have to do to make this up which is, after the facts are all known, ridiculous, showing he certainly did not read the book and if he did, he did not absorb what he read.
State taxes and how that fits in: Yes, State and local governments would have to pay approximately what they pay now once the hidden tax is removed. As far as State Income Taxes….once the FairTax is enacted and the underground economy is tapped, the States will run to change their tax systems to the FairTax also. And once again, he inflates the percentages adding the average State Sales tax. What he never pointed out in his rant in the negative concerning the FairTax is the underground economy rolls on no matter what our present tax system does to close loop holes. A person only pays taxes when he buys something NEW with the FairTax . Drug MONEY is spent all the time, prostitution, private sales, garage sales, etc….all income will eventually be spent generating revenue. With every purchase the tax is paid regardless of income. It does not discriminate.
Mr. Bartlett’s goes on to point out how ignorant he is by claiming intrusive complexity in tracking income and creating a welfare program and his rant of affording the ‘rebate’ for essentials. First of all…the government need not know how much you make. It makes no difference. Its what you SPEND. You are issued a rebate once a month from the government for the essentials…food, rent, etc…based on the number in your household NOT on income. The government is required to keep more records than that on us now. This should not be too hard and with the INCREASED revenue, the expense to administer will be minuscule to what they pay the Internal Revenue Service that will no longer exist.
Mr. Bartlett goes on to lambaste the FairTax with percentages generated by other government agencies claims based on, no doubt, some more misinformed individuals who’s only goal in life is to please the lobbyist who, by the way, would wield less power in Washington if we had the FairTax. With the FairTax an austerity program for the spendthrift government could be implemented by the people simply by doing some budgeting of our own.
The tax collection: Our learned author now tries to explain the complexity and sheer “can’t get here from there” logic when it comes to collecting the tax. He claims massive technical and administrative problems. HUH? They do it everyday and it takes approximately less than 2 minutes to change the cash register to add or subtract in its calculations. And what incentive would the States have to collect this tax? What does the State have to do with the Federal Tax? At first the State’s only concern will be how they can cash in on the underground economy as the Federal Government has. Their implementation of the FairTax concept would be no more than it is now….the now hidden tax you already pay..remember?
April 15th: Just another nice spring day, for sure. No need to file an income tax return, Mr. Bartlett. I paid my tax. And I only paid the tax on NEW items, not on used. I get my rebate every month paying me back for the tax I paid last month on life’s essentials. I need not worry about owing….the big corporations do not have full time accountants figuring out all the loopholes in the tax code. They only have to keep up with paying as little as they can for their supplies (competition and free market) to keep their prices low. Oh, and Mr. Bartlett, there is a sucking sound abroad as all the businesses race to reestablish their businesses in America.
Rep. Linder has been recently invited to a foreign country to discuss the FairTax he represents in our Legislature as H.R.25/1025. Does America want to be first or last in the world economy?
And in finality let’s pretend we already have the FairTax and I am promoting the Internal Revenue Service to you today:
Right now, every time anyone and everyone, including the underground cash, drugs, and prostitution markets purchase something new you and they pay approx. 23% sales tax (NOT 30%). Also you and anyone with a legitimate Social Security # receives a monthly rebate for necessities of life. That’s it. That’s all. That IS the income tax.
But today I am promoting the Internal Revenue Service. Upwards to 33% of your gross yearly income will be taxed now along with all the businesses. Oh yes, you and they need to file every April 15th to prove you paid your fair share and don’t forget to add any interest you might have earned on anything! And you need to know the sales tax won’t really go down either since the businesses will be passing their tax along to you in product cost increases. Businesses and some individuals out there should probably consider hiring an accountant since you may have to file quarterly but it will only cost $500 billion on average a year for businesses and individuals seeking to comply. I should also warn you that because we have no way of tracking income from the underground markets dealing in cash, drugs, prostitution, etc. now, those tax percentages will have to rise to cover that tax revenue lost. Sorry about your luck.
Several million dollars and 25 yrs research by famed economists, FairTax.
Sandra Esterline
1. How can the airline experience be a model of anything good in economics? Regulated or deregulated? Admittedly airlines have numerous issues that are unique, including high capital needs, limited airport and takeoff space, huge needs for maintaining plane safety and post 9/11 vulnerability, but they are also an example of marketing and trick and trap qualities (selling nonrefundable tickets for example) run amok. Try to make sense out of airline fares. No frills airlines try to come and go while the established carriers face bankruptcy. If anything they represent the reality rather than the theory of markets. And who likes to fly anywhere?
2. The need for taxes that are simple, progressive, fair, collectible and able to fund the government we want is undermined by intractable opposition to progressive qualities by the rich and some anti-tax intellectuals, the dynamic that every “tax reform” results in more complexety and the sale of tax breaks in exchange for campaign contributions, and the resulting increase of aggravating qualities that makes tax time into a huge generator of negativity and marital strife as people try to figure out the arcane and convoluted language of the tax code. Antitax people seem to be hoping that enough people will hate the aggravation of tax time so much that they will go along with their radical changes that would eliminate the progressive qualities that remain in certain aspects of the code.
3. The idea that things that have taxes applied to them up the production line are somehow unfair as “hidden taxation” or “double taxation” is pretty much a phony argument. What matters most is the bottom line amount and who it falls on.
4. In my opinion any tax that is marketed as “the Fair Tax” is a con job and should be rejected out of hand until its backers come up with name that honestly describes it. This one appears to be a national sales tax that would replace income taxes. Let’s forget labeling it as “fair” and let its proponents prove it is fair, if it is, by examining its merits.
5. The first thing that would make taxation fairer is to repeal Bush’s tax giveaway to the wealthy. And by all means we should not repeal the estate tax that applies only to the wealthiest. We could also raise the limits where we collect the Social Security tax which is the most regressive part of the federal system, and would also allow Social Security to be adequately funded and avoid the funding crisis which conservatives use to argue for “privatize” it (turn Social Security over to the Wall Street people who funded the subprime mortage mess. We would also have real social security instead of winners and losers from speculating on the market. If anything you could invest some of the common fund in the market, but keep an eye on those in charge of doing it). And if we eliminated private funding of political campaigns, we would have less of government selling tax breaks, immunities from liability and similar corruption. Perhaps then we could gradually phase out tax breaks and other tax expenditure based social policies that are best handled by getting money in through the tax system and then spending it in well thought out and well monitored social programs. (Conservatives who argue for gradual withdrawal, or perhaps actually non-withdrawal, from Iraq as opposed to immediate withdrawal might consider whether some of the same arguments apply to how radically we change the tax code.)
Dear Stan,
A poor man never hired me to do anything, has he you?
Wealth envy is never becoming and surely you can find something more wrong with this than the name. Your other statements are simply conjecture.
If the idea is that the wealthy will invest the Bush tax cuts to create jobs and employ people, the answer is 1. they didn’t, not here anyway; 2. there is nothing that says they have to employ anyone to get the benefits of these tax cuts; 3. we would probably be better givng the money to low to moderate income people to spend and stimulate the economy; 4. a severe division of wealth essentially bids up the price of things like the stock market and creates “bubbles” as the supply of money exceeds the number of luxury items they can demand. Some think you may also get social unrest although that may not happen in a national security state where there is a lot of surveillance. We may see.
These posts are actually under discussion of Huckabee’s candidacy, but might be better served by looking at the discussion of a Robert Reich article; Reich Says America Needs to Use Tax System to Transfer Wealth From Top Earners to Bottom Two-Thirds.
Ms.Esterline, the inability of the sales-tax proponents to respond to simple inquiries continues to confound me.
It’s possible to make any type of tax simper or more complicated. Our legislators have shown that they prefer the latter, and to insane degrees. What in your “fair” tax proposal will prevent legislators from passing a passal of “fair” tax credits, breaks, loopholes, exemptions, special-cases, etc. just as they have for the income tax? (Are the stories true that in France the sales tax is levied at different rates for groceries and carry-out restaurant fare–and that government agents stand outside markets with a thermometer to measure chicken temperatures to make certain the right tax rate was assessed?)
Moreover, your new “fair” tax is going to require a collection and enforcement bureaucracy similar to that of the IRS, and moreover, the provision that each wage-earner gets a $27,500 rebate will require a second agency to keep track of everyone’s income and distribute the rebates–which agency thus will need to be just as big as the IRS.
So your proposal does nothing to guarantee that it will continue in its admirable simplicity, and moreover it doubles the size of the federal tax beureaus.
No thanks, come back when you can fix those problems. Or you might decide to be open to my own suggestion instead, since I am convinced I actually do know how to make taxation more fair–and no one has yet shown me how it wouldn’t work.
Mr. Hirtle,
More than half of Huckabee’s followers ARE FAirTax proponents. That IS his candidacy…the media just does not say that.
Also, your ideology, I suspect is not in tune with the FairTax anyway. For instance, I personally would hope your son or daughter could grow up, go to school of choice and be what ever they chose to be and make as much money as they were ambitious enough to make and KEEP as much as they can for themselves and what ever is left at their death should be THEIR heirs. Somehow I do not think you would wish that for my children.
Because of the Bush tax cuts the company I work for has expanded facility wise and hired nine people.
Mr. Riddick,
I would not mind at all taking credit for it but it is not ‘MY’ FairTax plan…its been out there for sometime and there a lot of people willing to entertain it than you can imagine…. Huckabee’s popularity for instance.
Just by what you say in your response you have not read the book. Where did you come up with $27,500 rebate? Where? And, of course, there are questions and concerns that will have to be addressed…some a lot more important than what you have pointed out. My main point when first READING the book was repeal of the 16th Amendment to get rid of the Internal Revenue. This would have to be taken care of before implementation of the FairTax.
But I can see the ease in collecting it since, as I mentioned before , any cash register can be adjusted in minutes. Any plan, no matter who or what it entails will need refinement and watch dogged. I simply do not understand the ‘blather’ of people, unless you are a government affiliate and stand to lose some control of the money and/or people, that MAKE-UP negatives about a viable idea. No new system will be perfect and will need fine tuning but it would seem to me thinking positive solutions rather than negative would be more productive. And in addition, most opponents of the FairTax have never read anything from the original authors. They insist on quoting others who have never read it either. I have not found one person who actually read the book not ultimately for it somehow.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said “when I pay taxes I buy civilization.” You may pay too much or get too little civilization in return but the point is that the social infrastructure makes it possible for anyone to earn anything. The idea that anyone did it all themselves and should keep everything is nonsense.
Given that the first 2 million dollars of an estate is exempt from the federal estate tax, chances are that most peoples’ heirs are going to do ok. Small businesses can have to take on additional debt and rumor has it that the Cincinnati Bengals spent a decade in or near last place because of estate taxes on Paul Brown’s estate when the team was passed on to his children. Or it could be because he didn’t pass on his football genius to them and they made lousy business decisions.
Peoples children are in much more danger of having zero inheritance because of Medicaid estate recovery for nursing home costs, and other costs related to the cost of healthcare and the lack of universal coverage.
Ah, I guess I was relying on an old figure.
According to http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxPrebateExplained2007.pdf the maximum rebate (prebate) would be about 10,000 per year.
Seems low to me, but it still requires a massive bureaucracy. The sales-tax people seem to think that the social security administration can take on this “prebate” with no great difficulty–another bit of evidence in support of their disconnect from reality.
But finally, my main question again. What in your proposal prevents federal, state or local governments from cutting special individual tax breaks or imposing a ridiculous hierarchy of special-interest sales-tax rates for certain types of purchase? I see no such thing, and no one has yet given me a satisfactory explanation of how it would be prevented.
So I conclude that your “fair” tax proposal is a vacant promise and that’s why I put “fair” in quotations marks. The system of taxation is less important to me than the notion that all of similar means and endeavors should pay identical rates. The Fair Tax proposal (the one you disown–or is it “your” proposal, as in the one you favor?) does NOTHING to promote that worthy goal.
I am assuming you understand the concept. You do not pay taxes unless you buy something. If you do not buy anything, you do not pay taxes no matter who you are. You get your GROSS check amount, no deductions what so ever. The more you make..probably the more you will spend, hence, the more tax you pay. If you insist on buying a brand new car…you pay the tax. If you are like me and prefer the one the original owner thought he wanted but traded in after 5000 miles….you do not pay the tax.
For the benefit of those who may be following our posts, and since I am very much FOR this and I will be happy to call it MY FAirTAx…in response to your question the book says..and I quote
” The governors we have talked to say they’d be very likely to eliminate state income taxes, since each state that levies an income tax uses federal regulations to determine taxable income-regulations that would now be obsolete. They also say they would welcome a move to taxing all goods and services with no exclusions or exemptions. Why? Not only would the system be easier to administer, but it would also broaden the tax base(with the addition of taxes on services). Eliminating exclusions and exemptions would also allow the states to reduce their tax rate dramatically. One study of the revenue from one of our larger states…one witih no income tax and a sales tax on goods that varies from 7.75 percent to 8.25 percent …showed that moving to a tax on all goods and services, with no exclusions or exemptions, would allow the state to reduce its tax rate to 2.5 percent without losing a dime in revenue. And there is another giant reason to opt for a sales tax with no exemptions: In 2003, the states lost more than $23 billion in collections from Internet and catalog sales…a figure that is only going to explode in coming years. The FairTax will recapture that income.”
Since I do not intend to reproduce the whole book here nor can I….I would like to point out that on February 15th a new book was released written and published just for YOU..”FairTax, The Truth: Answering the Critics.” It has most if not all of your questions answered since the first book in 2005.
I would also like to add that Congressman John Linder has just recently been invited by a foreign country to visit and explain the FairTax concepts and outrightly informed him that if his presentations and these concepts were as they themselves had studied, they wanted to be FIRST for once instead of America.
I can assure you if this happened I would be tempted to move any business I might have there ASAP!
I do hope that more folks like yourself would simply take a more hands on approach to their tax liabilities, investigate, discuss and come up with a better way. Internet, table and forum discussions are the route to this.
Esterline, either you have a simple answer to the question “how will you prevent legislators from making this sales tax as complicated and unfair as the income tax” or you don’t. I am not going to read a book that you think is insightful, so far you’ve failed to convince me that you are capable of insight. Either answer the question on your next try, or I give up on you and continue to think that this tax proposal is wrong-headed and “fair” in name only.
Today’s Dayton Daily News, in endorsing McCain, said of Huckabee:
“But he has not demonstrated the depth to be president. He has naively signed onto the “fair tax,” a half-baked scheme for eliminating income taxes. ”
http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2008/02/24/ddn022408presrepxxmg.html
Fair Tax advocates have some convincing to do.
Mr. Ruddick,.. Oh dear,,,and you will never, never talk to me again? You continue to show you are not up on the subject you address here. Why do you think you can get a simple answer about such a complex topic.? The FairTax is an inclusive consumption tax..not a sales tax and everyone,,,rich and poor will pay the tax. Most legislators will think twice about proposing to raise taxes on the poor. And like anything else that happens with our government, the people will have to watch dog the system, electing those that will follow their will. There is no tax system that will not be vulnerable to the politicians.
And with your attitude, all is lost. Your Social Security is doomed, you know, since you are fearful of any talk of reform, any suggestion to reform (I won’t use the word change here..) and will not educate yourself to the point of backing ANY reform. IF the status quo remains, the system will definitely be broken very soon. Please do not read the book,,you might find out something that will stimulate your simplistic mind. Now you tell me why we should keep this very unfair system we have? That’s pretty broad and simplistic.
Dear Stan, You and Mr. Ruddick remind me of Plato’s acronym of the nine men in a cave. Prisoners since birth they were chained there and on the opposite wall of the cave they saw shadows lasting for hours then blackness at regular intervals. They considered the shadows the Gods. One managed to escape and found the entrance to the cave where people walked to and fro casting shadows on the walls into the cave during the day. He ran back into the cave to tell others what he had seen. They killed him.
And because the Dayton Daily News said it..that makes it so? They once said the world was flat, they said man couldn’t fly. Look how they fought the automobile verses the horse. They swore up and down the economy would be ruined since the many buggy whip factories would go under. Just a few examples of the populace railing against reform and change. And there are just some folks that like to stay negative just to be negative. I bet you both love global warming too. In the 30’s we were supposed to die of the heat…then in the 70’s we were going to die of the cold…and now looky here…we are going to die of the heat again. Hmmmm…propaganda to control behavior, control YOU?
You have not heard the last of the FAIRTAX. Too many people HAVE read the book and see the sense in it. But you are right in that there are not enough of the general population that are informed enough on basic economics to fathom it. It will take a “no alternative’ situation that will arrive soon enough.
Esterline, please go back. Where have I said that I like the current system of taxation and that I want to keep it?
Nowhere.
You furthermore seem to think that “acronym” means the same thing as “parable.”
The problem is complex and the solutions will not be simple. Only constitutional amendments will rein in our legislators, it seems. This SALES tax proposal does not rise to that level.
I’m communicating (not talking) with you again because perhaps restatement will help you understand where your proposal fails. If you don’t get it this time, fatigue will probably set in on my end.
I do not always agree with the Dayton Daily News, but the point was how little shrift they give to the so called “Fair tax” I dislike even using the term since it assumes the conclusion that this tax system is fair and is in fact the most fair system.
Please explain how this is a tax on consumption and not sales. Even its website describes it as a sales tax. I do not see how you could tax “Consumption” without a surveillance bureaucracy that is watching when anyone consumes something.
I am struck by the messianic and utopian qualities to the points made by advocates, as if this tax change is somehow a simple solution to a lot of complex problems . The Wall Street Journal, who I agree with less than the Dayton Daily News, points to the passion of its advocates, but debunks the tax. Perhaps the WSJ prefers the present system where unfair taxes can be purchased in exchange for campaign contributions. Similarly Esterline’s post refers to a wisdom story about cave people, as well as the invention of the automobile and the airplane, inventions that radically transformed life. She ends with an attack on negativity, Hope is a powerful thing as Obama’s candidacy is showing, and it seems to have hit where Huckabee’s did not. Of course there are other visions of the future that did not happen,such as dirigibles, jet packs, teleportation devices, warp drive, the workers’ paradise. So hope must be balanced by rational scepticism about utopian solutions. Certainly this is a large enough change and a large enough risk, if advocates have gotten it wrong, to require a leap of faith. And faith may be what this is about.
However tax should be a rational issue that can be put forth rationally by explaining how it works and answering questions about what in theory might go wrong. So far this has not happened. But there is always the next post.