The unwillingness of the mainstream GOP candidates in this debate to confront Huckabee's fair tax snake oil is striking. Similarly, Romney is careful to neither repeat the Lafferite nonsense of his opponents nor explicitly contradict it. The facts are on his side but he's afraid to use them.
« Hunter | Main | DC Gun Ban »
Fair Tax
12 Dec 2007 02:21 pm
Comments (16)
The unwillingness of the mainstream GOP candidates in this debate to confront Huckabee's fair tax snake oil is striking.
I don't think this is necessarily the case.
An attack on the fair tax requires an explanation of the fair tax (What's that? Why's that bad? What are scientologists? What's a black market? What's so impossible about policing black markets?), which can't be done in a sound bite.
Most voters would probably tune out a 30 minute lecture on the Fair Tax, followed by another 30 minute lecture on the Fair Tax's stupidity. Even then, the last lecture might be useless without a semester course on black markets (if any notable percentage of Americans understood black markets, we wouldn't have wars on drugs or prostitution).
The other campaigns (as well as the party establishment) are hitting Huckabee on everything other than the Fair Tax because his other weaknesses (such as the AIDS thing and the Dumont thing) are less confusing.
It's really striking because the Fair Tax would be one of Huckabee's biggest albatrosses in the general election. Saying "I want to abolish the IRS" isn't really credible to a swing voter, so he gets nothing from that. Saying "I want a national sales tax... of at least 25 percent" is a goddamn Wes Craven movie for that voter. I actually tested this out with some of my apolitical friends back in Delaware (who heard about Huckabee via the Chuck Norris ad). They were joking, derisively, about a "Huckabee tax" all day.
Shinyk is right, the problems with the Fair Tax can't be explained in 30 seconds. Ron Paul has talked more than any other Republican candidate about the problems with the Fair Tax (no cutting of spending, possible national sales tax along with the IRS and the income tax as well, etc.) The problem is, Ron Paul doesn't do personal attacks like the rest of them do, so he's not going to take Huckabee on directly on this issue, even though he could and has enough money to run ads about it.
He is much more knowledgeable on it than Huckabee, though. The New York Times said that Huckabee was surprised at the news that a huge black market would arise from a national sales tax, which means he hasn't studied the issue for more than a five-minute briefing.
Actually, I beg to differ with Dave: abolishing the IRS IS attractive to many swing voters when it's explained the right way. I've had success explaining how this can be done to people of either party and independents. By getting rid of all individual income taxes, we'd have the same budget we had in 2000 and a healthier economy, from all the increased spending and saving.
To the average republican primary voter, I doubt that the details of Huckabee's plan are important. Most people understand that even if he somehow became president, there's very little chance he'd ever get something like that through. No, I see the sales tax idea as just a way to seem the most anti-tax of the group. What does it mean to 'double guantanamo'? Nobody knows, but when you say that, it sends the message that nobody will be tougher on terrorists than you. In the same way, Huckabee's plan sends the message to primary voters that a) he views taxes as a bad thing and b) he's willing to take the most extreme position possible against them. Seems like a winning strategy to me. At least for the primaries.
lackluster, Libertarian Girl illustrates that, actually, Ron Paul's position on taxes is even more extreme than Huckabee's.
Also, don't you think that if a person with extreme views on a subject gets elected president that kinda validates those views in a big way and makes them less extreme? Maybe a President Huckabee wouldn't have the political capital to implement the Huckabee tax, but he sure would make the possibility a heck of a lot more likely.
By getting rid of all individual income taxes, we'd have the same budget we had in 2000 and a healthier economy, from all the increased spending and saving.
... And a higher effective tax rate for the overwhelming majority of the American people. Good luck with that.
By getting rid of all individual income taxes, we'd have the same budget we had in 2000 and a healthier economy, from all the increased spending and saving.
lackluster, Libertarian Girl illustrates that, actually, Ron Paul's position on taxes is even more extreme than Huckabee's.
Disagree. Getting rid of an income tax and replacing it with nothing is only crazy if you can't get the numbers to add up (which is nearly, but not completely, impossible and would involve ending medicaire, maybe medicaid as well).
Implementing the fair tax would mean that g-men would inevitably be strong-arming average joe's to see the receipt for their coffee and locking them up forever if they've lost it.
The former is unrealistic in the massive restructurings necessary to do it(in some ways it's heartless as well), but I find the latter far more extreme.
By getting rid of all individual income taxes, we'd have the same budget we had in 2000 and a healthier economy, from all the increased spending and saving.
That's misleading. Though non-entitlement discretionary spending has gone up loads since 2000, the biggest increase has been in Medicaire--Medicaire being a problem of structure and demographics, not "fiscal irresponsibility" (notwithstanding Bush's stupid, permanent Drug Benefit bill).
Knock out all pork, all unnecessary agencies, all wars and all foreign aid and Medicaire/Medicaid still boots national spending well over 2000 levels. And it keeps going up and up and up until the last boomer dies, even if Congress never passes another new spending bill.
The reason other Republicans aren't beating Huckabee over the head with this is because tax progressivity isn't really a Republican value. Republican attitudes towards progressive taxation range from indifference to positive contempt; every one of them supports changing the tax system so wage earners pay an ever larger share of the government's bills.
A flat sales tax could be made progressive quite easily if you were to exempt groceries, medicine/medical care, primary residence, or anything that's essential.
It still accomplishes a) taxing consumption as opposed to earning (something that should excite economists and environmentalists alike) and b) simplifying the compliance bureaucracy nightmare.
I wish I could see Democrats up in arms every time a Democrat proposes a regressive tax - say on gas, or cigarettes. :) At least a pure flat tax isn't as regressive as one that only targets items with inelastic demand.
I wish I could see Democrats up in arms every time a Democrat proposes a regressive tax - say on gas, or cigarettes.
Amen. The Republican party may not care one whit about the poor, but, aside from the fringe "fair tax" and the bipartisan drug war, at least it doesn't kick the poor squarely in the teeth, which is exactly what cigarette and carbon taxes do.
Why does anyone think that tax income must equal governmental expenditures?
This post isn't the right place for this, but there is a very good argument to be made that the reason we're in the financial pickle we're in now is because we've let the banks--and not the government--create the money that we must all use in commerce.
See the rule book. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 5, US Constitution
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/
James Hogan
Cigarette and gas taxes should be thought of as externality taxes. There's more to taxes than just whether they are regressive or not. If someone other than the smoker or the driver is negatively affected by the smoking or driving, they should be compensated. One way to compensate them is to shift the tax burden off them and onto the driver/smoker.
I smoked for 20 years but I quit. It wasn't easy, but it was definitely worth it. Quitting is always an option for those who don't want to pay the tax. I also don't own a car anymore (I live in the greater Tokyo area and don't need one). BTW, climate change isn't the only externality associated with driving cars. It affects people's health and freedom of movement (young kids have to be kept away from busy roads, etc. Particulates in exhaust cause disease).
Comments closed December 26, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The facts are on his side but he's afraid to use them.
Given the standing 'the facts' have in the eyes of your average Republican primary voter, is this really very surprising?
Posted by soullite | December 12, 2007 2:33 PM