Huckabee says amend US Constitution to be in "God's standards"
You guys may have seen this one, but this guy thinks nothing of the separation of church and state. Right now, a lot of people are calling him the front runner, but in my humble opinion, saying things like this is simply unacceptable. The only thing he's got it right with is the Fairtax but Ron Paul's got it, too.
1.17.2008
Huckabee is nuts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ron Paul doesn't necessarily support the fairtax. He said that it is better than the income tax (anything is), but he would rather replace the income tax with less government spending -- not a regressive tax like fairtax.
Dahg, no way is fair tax better than income tax. Fair tax would only further empower the wealthy elite, and marginalize the middle class. A healthy economy has a robust middle class, ours is only further dissipating. Obviously our tax code needs revision, but to completely eliminate income tax would be a mistake. If anything we need to pump up the tax rate on the wealthy (just a bit, don't worry) or somehow allow cities to levy an income tax and lower the federal income tax, so that social programs, which should be more particular to city/state, can be customized even more acutely to address urban societal ills.
Fact is, the Fairtax puts the power of control over your money back in your hands. The government has no place, according to our constitution, to take a "direct, unapportioned tax" which it is doing now. I recognize that we are all anti-income tax, but nonetheless, isn't Fairtax right to tax consumption? Overconsumption and conspicuous consumption are two huge problems in our country that would be dealt with in this tax system. A basic economic idea that I'm sure you understand is that when you want to discourage something, you tax it, and when you want to encourage something, you subsidize it. Why are we discouraging people from working when this is a productive activity? Massive consumption not accompanied by any intelligent saving or investing, something evidenced here in our working and middle classes by rampant debt (especially on luxury goods or spending beyond means), should not be encouraged by the low sales taxes that we enjoy today. In regards to the regressiveness of the tax, all federal taxes are waived for those below the poverty line, prebates are issued that reimburse these individuals for the necessities of life, and the rich are forced to pay a significantly higher tax on their retail goods than before. Also, the illegal income of the underground economy (est. $1.5 trillion/yr.) will be taxed in this scheme. Read
Fairtax site's answer to regressive argument
to get a better understanding of the full situation. The Fairtax may be deeper and may deal with more of your objections than you think.
Good points. That all sounds good, tax codes aren't my strongsuit, so I have a few questions on the issue:
Assuming you're referring to all illicit sales of things in a "black market" type of enterprise when you say underground economy, how will that be recorded and taxed?
The fair tax site uses terms such as wealthy, middle class, and lower-income, do you know where fair tax advocates draw these distinctions?
The 16th amendment of the Constituion allows for "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." So despite betraying perhaps the main body of the Consititution, the income tax was enabled through the validated means of alteration of an imperfect document.
I agree that overconsumption and debt building from poor saving/investment are negative aspects rampant in our economy, but I don't see how fair tax can rectify that without further marginalizing the middle class, and despite the fair tax site claims to be able to provide the same social programs, I don't see how that can be possible.
Wouldn't a tax on consumption discourage foreign investment?
I also fear for the safety of certain things within a fair tax system (that was an ugly way to say it, but I'm really tired). A black market will more than likely form in this system, and more people will have more under the table items. Without a federal commission to regulate the safety and sale of these items, the consumer will not necessarily know what is included in the purchased items and possible risks accompanied with the items (obviously this is a nod to food and such items that go, as Seth--Superbad-- says, "...in or around her mouth." but it also has implications for plenty of other industries)
Yo, I wish we had a separate topic for this, since I just realized we're still using this Huckabee post... Oh well.
I've had to do some research to answer a few of your objections, which of course is a good thing, and here are my findings...
Regarding your first question about what I said about the underground economy, I'm dealing with being able to tax folks such as drug dealers, under-the-table workers, and others engaging in and profiting from (creating income from) activities that are deemed illegal by our government. Currently, these people are not taxed on their income at all (except through sales taxes and other applicable ones), as they obviously aren't going to be declaring their ill-gotten gains to the government and paying the subsequent taxes. Under Fairtax, they would be taxed as soon as they went in to spend their drug loot on Bentleys, Gucci, etc, which would act to level the playing field.
Essentially, as long as you're a consumer of goods, you're getting taxed.
For your second question dealing with defining the different levels of income, I have not found an easy answer. However, everyone is getting prebates for their food and medicines, (even the rich folk) but the relative tax rates for the rich still end up exceeding those of the poor, since their consumption will presumably be much higher. I just saw on wikipedia "In 2006, in the United States of America, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was US$10,488; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$20,444." I believe that a similar level will be used in the Fairtax system. The UN defines it differently. Try Poverty Threshold
You're right about the 16th amendment allowing for the addition of an income tax, however, a) That doesn't necessarily mean that an income tax really is a good thing for our economy and b) there are folks out there that have worked hard and haven't been able to find it in law somewhere that we are to pay this tax. Apparently, the US government has not been very keen on explaining it to the people, either.
You keep mentioning marginalizing our middle class, (which I agree has happened for a variety of reasons already) but before I can make any comment, I've got to understand your reasoning for saying that. Also, consider that the embedded taxes in our products that manufacturers and retailers use to make up for their own income lost in taxes would be erased in this system, i.e. prices of goods, overall, will decline Let me know if that has anything to do with your question.
On the foreign investment tip, a tax on consumption would not necessarily discourage foreign investment, because although one likely outcome of this tax would be (far?) lower spending with consumptive activities, many of the other aspects of it are sure to strengthen our economy. Also, it is possible to put too much emphasis on foreign investment, and if our economy is strengthening from within due to higher incomes and greater saving and investment, I'd say we're better off than the alternative.
I'm going to have to think about what you said about the underground economy dealing in untaxed goods popping up as a result of this. It makes sense, of course, because that scenario follows a long history of people cheating the system to increase their own financial well-being. However, that would require the collusion of manufacturers of goods and/or retailers, which at any significant level, would be very hard to maintain. Also, that situation requires people to be willing (stupidly) to buy under-the-table items from sketchy companies, etc. That is, first of all, a poor personal decision in general, but more specifically, it implies ignorance of the Fairtax law by those people, since everyone at lower income levels will be better off under the system, despite the initially gasp-inducing level of sales tax.
Check out The FairTax Book if I've even convinced you at all that this system is not out to get anybody, and that we'll all be better off without a pain-in-the-ass and corrupted IRS. That's where I've gotten some of my info. I haven't really even read it yet, but I'm getting the idea.
Be well, sir
haha, in and around her mouth, indeed
By marginalize the middle class I mean to make it smaller. It seems that a tax on consumption would cripple the middle class worst of all; you have already pointed out that the middle class is the consumer class, and I understand the argument for saving and a high tax on luxury goods makes complete sense, but the millionaires will still be able to buy the stuff they want and keep their comparative wealth, while the middle class will be polarized to wealthy or upper classes.
Also I'm a bit hesitant with prebates, because most prebate and rebate systems become congested and many people do not get reimbursed for things that most see as necessary.
I agree that the constitution is an imperfect document (part a. of 16th amendment comment); I was pointing out that the constitution does allow for an income tax.
Undoubtedly an excess of foreign investment is a dangerous, as excesses of... pretty much any one input is dangerous for an economy, but foreign investment is a great way to bring economic growth from the input of outside money, which is purely an additive for industry and economy (meaning no initial loss or risk since the money was brought in from a foreign economy).
I also have beef with the poverty levels. I know they're not particular to fairtax, which is why I just have beef with that in general. 7 dollars an hour (close to minimum wage, I'm not sure what it is now), 40 hrs a week, 50 weeks a year brings you over that poverty level, and has become cliche to note the difficulties of living around minimum wage. Fuck that rhythm.
I do have a more favorable outlook on fairtax though now; a lot of my qualms of regulating consumption stem from the failed attempts at such an effort (most socialist experiments-- I know its a completely different system internally but its similar at the principle level-- and within those systems a black market always emerges establishing underground networks of service taking away from the governments legitimacy).
But Fairtax does seem to have merit.
haha I said the middle class would be polarized to the wealthy or upper classes but I meant it would be polarized to the working or wealthy class, with an emphasis on working.
He's worse than I could have ever imagined.
Shouldn't this guy be in a padded cell?
Post a Comment