How the Democrats can destroy Huckabee
30 November 2007 by The Uncredible Hallq
(Cross posted at The Uncredible Hallq)
It’s becoming increasingly likely that Mike Huckabee is going to be the Republican nominee. The Evangelicals will take one of their own if they can have one, they can have Huckabee, so they aren’t settling for a Mormon (Romney) or a vaguely secular type (Giuliani) or someone who only recently made friends with Jerry Falwell (McCain).
Today, Andrew Sullivan approvingly linked to a Mark Kleinman post declaring that one of the things Huckabee has going for him is that “he’s not a hater or a lunatic or a fool.”
I beg to differ.
Back when it looked like Romney might get the nomination, smart atheists like Brian Flemming were salivating over it as a chance to provoke more discussion about religious belief in this country.* Is Huckabee really all that much worse of a target, though? Sure, the lack of foreignness means its harder to get the ball rolling. But there’s a guarantee that the conversation won’t get bogged down on the mere foreignness of his beliefs, and we can get on to what really makes them crazy.
First, of course, is the evolution issue. The attack here is straightforward. If official Democratic party types want to put together something that will appeal to a mass audience, I’d suggest they start off with a good fossil line up, maybe a quick mention of DNA analysis, and then ask: If Huckabee can ignore such a well-established scientific fact, what other elements of reality will he succeed in ignoring? Do we want to be giving someone like that control of the most powerful military on Earth, including, let’s not forget, a good-sized nuclear arsenal? Have we forgotten what happened the last time a president was willing to ignored reality [cue photo of newspaper with headline announcing no WMDs have been found in Iraq]? The task is made even easier by the fact that Huckabee is officially agnostic on whether the Earth is a year over 6,000, so throw in something like DefCon’s Top 10 Reasons the Earth is not 6,000 years old. The dirty little secret of modern Creationists is that while they may find a lot of people who will tell poll takers they don’t believe in evolution, once the public controversy gets serious they don’t do so well. Dover voters eventually booted the creationists off their school board. Plenty of conservative pundits have quietly aligned themselves on a quasi-secular stance, and aren’t going to be too serious about defending him. Heck, while the number of creationists among the current crop of GOP presidential candidates is depressing, they’re still in a minority even among their own kind.
While the evolution angle would be an effective line of attack, it’s nothing compared to the mileage that could be gotten out of the whole eternal damnation issue. An ideal set up would require some good dirt-digging ability, but here’s a sample way of posing the question:
Rev. Huckabee, in 1998 the editor declared the fact that some Christians believe that non-Christians may go to heaven is a significant problem, and in fact an entire issue of the journal was dedicated to advocating this view. Do you agree or disagree?
If Huckabee, in responding, lets slip that he believes all non-Christians are going to Hell, hand it to the Anti-Defamation League and the Council on American-Islamic Relations and let them run with it. Talk about again and again until they do. Underline it with stupid-but-necessary questions, like, “If only Christians are going to Heaven, does this mean that no religious Jews are going to heaven?” After that, Huckabee’s gone. Even more so than with Creationism, the Evangelical doctrine of the Damnation of Everyone Who Disagrees With Us is something that may be widely preached when non-believers aren’t listening, but which Evangelicals recognize on some level as being completely indefensible. Heck, these days you can’t even get away with saying Jews would be somewhat better off as Christians (and I personally don’t think the shitstorm over Ann Coulter saying that made any sense). Baiting Huckabee on this issue makes the evolution thing look like an insanely risky gambit by comparison.
Sadly, this is all just a fantasy, as it’s very unlikely any Democrat will work up the backbone to do that. Unless… does anyone know if there are any chances left for average people to pose questions to candidates for the debates?
*and I’m not sure who Kleinman’s alleged hypocrites, mentioned at the bottom of his post, are.
30 November 2007, on 1:06 am
Too bad we all know they won’t and it will never come up, and even if it does, they still won’t.
30 November 2007, on 8:10 am
I don’t think that Huckabee will get the nomination.
Many Republicans are really looking for a “tough loudmouth, Dirty Harry, don’t be bound by silly rules such as the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions” tough guy and Hucakbee isn’t it.
Yeah, he is a pious woo and has no business running the country; he’d take our science back to the medieval ages.
30 November 2007, on 12:53 pm
While I’m a Republican, if Huckabee is the nominee, I’ll take my chances with Big Sister.
Huckabee’s basically a John Edwards that likes fetuses– he’s for ClintonCare, for higher taxes, and says he has a “Biblical Duty” to stop ManBearPig. In short, he’s just another do-gooder progressive who thinks it is his mission to perfect his fellow man.
Plus it makes no sense to make war upon religious fundamentalists in other countries while supporting them here. Granted, Hillary will permanently screw up our healthcare system. But unlike Comrade Edwards and Comrade Obama, Clinton was been a strong supporter of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will not let the Iranians have a bomb. (Remember Desert Fox in 1998?)
30 November 2007, on 1:25 pm
The Democratic candidate can anihilate Huckabee just by shining a light on his ultra-regressive signature proposal to scrap income tax in favor of a national sales tax. This shifts the tax burden even more away from the rich and onto the poor and middle class, who spend a much larger portion of their income on consumption.
Huck’s main sales pitch is that under his plan, hookers, drug dealers, and illegal immigrants who now escape income taxation would pay this new sales tax, which, of course, greatly appeals to the evangelical base who hate sin (hookers and drug dealers) and brown people (illegals) with equal fervor. They will be oblivious to the fact that it increases their own total tax burden as well.
To me, kitchen table personal finance seems like a much more fruitful line of attack than a religious war - a smart Dem would sidestep the church state separation issue, except for countering Huckabee’s sweet-talking slime. The people for whom pro- or anti- theocracy is an important issue already know who they’re voting for.
30 November 2007, on 1:42 pm
JH,
I believe you mean she will screw up our heath care system even more. I doubt you could find one person that has even 1/2 of a brain that thinks the system works just peachy keen. Are you suggesting that GWB didn’t go to war because he “thinks it is his mission to perfect his fellow man”? All of these nutty bastards feel that it is their job to do that very thing. In short, all religious republicans think that it is their mission to perfect their fellow man. Don’t give me that crap about it being only a “do-gooder progressive” trait.
Hallq,
I agree with both of your strategies and that the Demo’s are too big of pussies to attack these assholes. This is why we need a third party.
30 November 2007, on 2:07 pm
Chaoswes–
On September 11th, 2001, a group of Muslim kids hijacked several planes and flew them into American targets chanting “God is Greatest!” The Republicans believe we need to address the root causes of terrorism– dictatorships and theocracies.
Many Democrats believe *America* is the root cause of terrorism, and Islamic violence is blowback to our foreign policy. This doesn’t explain the actions of Islamic Supremacists in Thailand, Russia, India, Sudan and so forth, so the Chomskyian story the Dems tell is blatantly false. And yes, the US has aided nasty elements before– Saddam against the Mullahs, the Saudis against the Wahhabis, but that’s because we don’t want to see the wackos prevail.
Healthcare: Government already pays for almost 50% of all healthcare costs in the USA. And when the government subsidizes something, the price increases without limit. Use your imagination and think about what would happen if the government paid for everyone’s automobiles. Everyone would want one, businesses would expand production and raise prices since the government is paying for the bill, and those not getting the govt cheese would be increasingly priced out of the car market.
That’s the situation healthcare is in today. What has happened when this is tried in other countries is that the corporations get blamed by politicians for the rising costs. Calling people greedy is easier than getting others to understand how subsidies drive up the prices of everything from college tuition to military hardware. So rationing is imposed, and most people– the healthy — are happy, because they getting marginally better care than they ordinarily would. But if you get prostate cancer, or colon cancer, or something serious– you’re thrown into the queue. That’s the way DemSoc works — greatest good for the greatest number. The Canadians, for example, prevent the minority (the sick) from buying their own care, and the more affluent ones end up going to magic places like Oregon and Wisconsin to treat their illnesses. The poor Canadians with serious illnesses are screwed.
30 November 2007, on 2:22 pm
op99 said:
>The people for whom pro- or anti- theocracy is an important issue already know who they’re voting for.
It’s not about pro- or anti- theocracy. It’s about press releases put out by groups for the rights of religious minorities that quote their own president saying Huckabee’s comments are offensive to the group they represent and he should apologize, and swing voters and even Evangelicals who try not to think about their beliefs too much being made squeemish, wishing to God that Huckabee hadn’t had to answer the question that way, and all that. There are plenty of people who are unlikely to ever get that worried about theocracy per se but who would consider Huckabee a bigot if he ever stated his beliefs too clearly.
30 November 2007, on 3:04 pm
op99,
So do you feel that hookers, drug dealers, and illegal immigrants should not pay taxes. That is silly. Surely you don’t mean that. And we don’t hate these people, we hate the situations that they put themselves in. Big difference.
30 November 2007, on 3:17 pm
JH,
There are far more root causes of terrorism then dictatorships and theocracies. One example is the simple fact that there are too many young men in the population.
“Gunnar Heinsohn (2003) argues that an excess in especially young adult male population predictably leads to social unrest, war and terrorism as the “third and fourth sons” that find no prestigious positions in their existing societies rationalize their impetus to compete by religion or political ideology.”
That quote took me less then 5 minutes to find under population pyramid on Wikipedia. Of course, that could not possibly be one of the root problems because the Repub’s didn’t tell you it was.
The ultimate root cause is that the middle eastern male dominated society has and continues to rely on violence to solve their problems. This is not a dictatorship or theocracy issue. It is a religious and social construct issue but hell lets just go kill some brown people that will solve the problem.
30 November 2007, on 3:37 pm
Chaoswes–
Again, leftists like yourself assume Islamic supremacists are animated by materialist causes, holding on to a Marxist determinism that has no validity. You don’t need to remind me that socialist pinheads who infest our university system believe the same thing.
There’s poverty in South America, which also has a large and rapidly growing young population. Yet you don’t see them strapping bombs to their kids to please Allah. You’re missing that ***religion*** is the key factor explaining why Muslim Supremacists do what they do in many different circumstances.
I’ll give you credit for not blaming Muslim violence on the Great Satan, the United States. Still, I ask you to accept religious fanaticism for what it is.
In addition, you may want to ask yourself if Muslim kids are becoming radicalized because of the poisonous teachings they learn in *our* system from people like YOU. It isn’t an accident that people like Ziad Jarrah (from an affluent secular family, studied aerospace engineering in Hamburg) and Zacarias Moussaoui (master’s degree in business) became radicalized *after* living in Western countries and drinking the Noam Chomsky Kool-Aid.
In short, socialists believe materialism causes all behavior. They act as if *ideas* don’t matter, which is why they are indifferent to putting violent ideas in the heads of others.
30 November 2007, on 4:13 pm
CH, I think non-Xians kvetching about a fundamental tenet of Xian dogma will piss off more “moderate” Xians (political independents?)than it will fire up non-Xians to vote against Huckabee. And it’s an “issue” that will drive the Republican base to the polls.
I’m just saying that, knowing how the Republican attack machine can whip low information voters into a frenzy using an emotionally charged wedge, it’s politically smarter to let that sleeping dog lie.
30 November 2007, on 4:21 pm
cure4pain at 8, I’m saying that the true effect, and probably the true motive, of the FairTax scheme that Huckabee touts is to shift the total tax burden away from the rich and toward the poor and middle class - sales taxes are patently regressive. Huckabee uses hookers, drug dealers, and illegals to engage our emotions - to con us into embracing a tax plan that is against our own economic self-interests. He is asking us to cut off our nose to spite our face.
30 November 2007, on 4:50 pm
JH
First off I am not a socialist. The only potentially valuable socialist idea is health care. I support that because I feel that the overall health of it citizens is a good way to judge the decency of a country. How typical that when someone disagrees with your line of thinking that they must be some kind of pinko commie. Jumping Jebus on a pogo stick that is stupid.
I own my own company, push my products and attempt to make as much money as possible. However, I don’t think it is responsible to fuck over everyone else just so I can drive a fancy car. Nor do I see any evidence that the trickle down economics actually works any better then the subsidize everything Democrat policy. Both suck and fail.
As to South America, their intrinsic social structure is significantly less violent then the middle eastern one and has a equally violent religion. Plus, there have been plenty of dictators ruling there so POOF there goes your lovely dictator being the cause of terrorism theory.
1 December 2007, on 12:27 am
If Huckabee was a political clone of Al Gore, I still wouldn’t vote for him just because he plays a freaking Tobias bass in a classic “rock” band. Everyone knows that only a vintage Fender Precision, a MusicMan Stingray, or a mid ’70’s Rickenbacker actually rock.
As to Bowden’s bloviations, for an example of Islam stripped of the crushing poverty and corrupt, oppressive dictatorship, see the reasonably successful Turks. Yes, their government is theoretically secular but that’s what can happen when the people aren’t so fucking angry and desperate.
1 December 2007, on 1:03 pm
Hmmm…Raindog?…
I own and played (most lovingly; and even shed some BS&Tears) a 1960 Precision Bass Guitar. Maybe I should run for President?
Oh wait!…I’m not in a ‘Classic’ Rock Band.
Nevermind!
1 December 2007, on 1:06 pm
Oops…I forgot; it is a 1960 Fender Precision!
1 December 2007, on 4:50 pm
opp99,
So are you saying that the rich are feeling a burden? Is that fair? Don’t get me wrong, I am thankful that the rich have been letting us ride on their coattails for the last 20-25 years; but is that really fair? Just because they are rich? I think we can agree that it is not. What is fair is an equal percentage for everyone. 15% (not a real number just a figure for argument) is the same for every one, factory worker to business tycoon. We should not fall into the trap of viewing rich people as somehow worthy of unfair taxation. They will be taxed when they buy their million dollar homes and when they buy the same stuff we buy.
1 December 2007, on 5:49 pm
opp99:
There is a prebate in the Fair Tax plan that basically makes basic needs spending untaxed. Also, the Fair Tax plan is not a Huckabee creation, its actually a very well researched model with lots of well respected economists behind it that he supports.
To me, the whole issue comes down to logic between the two. We currently have a bi-directional tax system (taxed on money in and money out). Really, thats just silly and isnt very logical at all. You need to pick a direction, and that what the Fair Tax does. And it makes much more sense to tax money out than it does to tax money in, since thats much easier to track. Taxing money in is a joke in itself since it allows for so many ridiculous abuses such as different rates on different types of money in (income, capital gains, death tax, etc).
Its just logical to tax people on money spent. If it was any more simple it would hit us in the face.
1 December 2007, on 5:53 pm
Cure4pain:
Baloney. The rich use the infrastructure of society (Police, Fire, Highways, Airwaves, etc.,) to make their fortunes. They did not do it all by themselves. Also, scum like the Waltons actually make a lot of their money by fucking the help out of it. Allowing them to pay the same tax rate as everyone else is wrong on an elemental fairness level. Oh, but then fairness isn’t a matter of law, so fuck everybody BUT them.
JH Bowden:
And yet it all makes you sound like you know what you’re talking about.
1 December 2007, on 8:40 pm
democommie,
um…if I am not mistaken, if I make $50,000 this year and the Waltons make $800,000,000, and we both are taxed the same, they will pay a hell of a lot more than me. I don’t know what the riches use of public services has to do with anything. I mean what are our property taxes for? I guess I couldn’t disagree more with the idea of taxing people differently just because they happen to be successful. When you get to the heart of it, is not inherently fair, regardless of how you feel about it.
1 December 2007, on 9:50 pm
Joe 18, look at this link (pdf) and and check out under the “Taxes Replaced” row. Fair Tax does away with all the taxes that impact rich people: income tax, capital gains tax, estate tax, gift tax, and the Alternative Minimum Tax. When you have millions, the bulk of your annual income does not go toward consumption (as opposed to the poor and middle class for whom a high percentage of income goes toward consumption), so your taxes are reduced. And if rich folks are paying less, guess who picks up the slack - you and I.
2 December 2007, on 5:25 am
op99 21, you are right about the rich and consumtion tax. But if we can free up more money for the rich then they generaly will use that money to make more money. Which means they invest in businesses, invest in venture capital, create businesses. Things that give more people an opportunity to work and make money while the rich do what ever it is rich people do. To me the current tax situation is bad and only getting worse. This is a solution I am willing to try.
2 December 2007, on 3:30 pm
cure4, if not-rich people have more money (as under a progressive income tax plan like we have now), they buy more things, which rich people profit from via production to satisfy this extra demand. Trickle-down doesn’t work, it’s a rationalization by the rich and their academic lackeys to bamboozle you into sitting by quietly while their taxes are reduced and ours are raised. Oh, and the people getting the “opportunity to work” by giving rich people extra venture capital - most of them aren’t in the United States.
3 December 2007, on 1:18 pm
op99, the fairtax link was good, hadn’t seen that pdf. I like it more now than ever after reading through all of those points.
op99, “if not-rich people have more money (as under a progressive income tax plan like we have now), they buy more things”
how would not-rich people have less money under the fairtax? There is a calculator on the fairtax site that will show a comparison of the current tax system to the fairtax. I suggest you will in the values of the people you are worried about to see that there really is no problem and actually most likely a benefit.
also, i have to side with cure4pain here. its no secret who starts businesses and employs people (and it isnt the bums on the sidewalk).
4 December 2007, on 6:55 pm
Would any of that really kill the Huckster with republicans, though?
I mean, anyone who still aligns themselves with that party despite said party’s massive criminal activities over the past few years is clearly not living in reality, so how would Hucky not living in reality be anything but an affirmation of their mental state?
5 December 2007, on 3:05 pm
Joe, if rich people’s taxes are reduced, which they would be MASSIVELY under this plan, then here are the only choices of how that lost revenue gets balanced:
A. reduce spending
B. put the shortfall on the credit card (= increase the deficit)
C. Shift the tax burden to the not-rich. (Choice B would most likely devolve into Choice C at some future date.)
I have been arguing that Choice C is how the the tax cut for the rich would be balanced. If you are correct, then that means we will be running at an even bigger deficit than we are already (B), or government spending will be reduced (A). You may think reducing government spending is a good thing, but I guarantee the cuts will adversely affect our quality of life. It won’t just be fraud, waste and pork.
6 December 2007, on 12:06 am
op99,
I disagree with the premise. First, the rate of the FairTax is something like 23%. Its that number because thats the number that yields the same revenue as the current system. That is the whole point of the number they came to.
Second, rich people don’t pay income tax. They pay capital gains tax which is much lower (15%). So the whole idea of raising taxes on the rich is really a fraud. In addition, who is classified as rich by tax hikers is a fraud (data below). What “taxing the rich more” does it tax people who are doing well (but not rich — still paying income taxes after all) to the point where they are punished for being above average but not yet rich. This makes it extremely difficult to cross the barrier.
A. I agree with reducing spending. Spending is way out of control. I don’t think we will be able to agree on this point, but thats ok.
B. Said this above, but theres no loss of revenue with the plan. Same amount comes in as it does now, just differently (based on consumption instead of income/incoming money).
C. As much as people like to say this, is isn’t and will never be the reality. Check out the figures (I had 2003 data on hand):
The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up. The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes.
The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes.
The top 10% pay 65.84%.
The top 25% pay 83.88%.
The top 50% pay 96.54%.
The bottom 50%? They pay 3.46% of all income taxes.
The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income.
The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income.
The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income.
The top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income
The top 50% earns 86.01% of all the income.
Cheers to a healthy debate!
Joe
6 December 2007, on 1:21 pm
Joe said,”Second, rich people don’t pay income tax. They pay capital gains tax which is much lower (15%).”
Capital gains is a category of income which is taxed at a lower rate than “ordinary income,” but it is income nevertheless, and it goes on your 1040 on line 13. “Fair Tax” eliminates C.G. tax completely, and replaces it with a consumption tax. Rich people don’t consume most of their income. So, again, if the whole shebang is revenue neutral, and rich people get a reduction, then who picks up the difference?
6 December 2007, on 2:03 pm
Joe, lets take your median couple earning 29k/year, say in my town. Here’s an annual budget for them:
$ 1,798 Social security tax (6.2%)
420 Medicare tax (1.45%)
1,150 Federal tax (standard deduction)
560 State tax
7,072 Food ($9.69/person/day) (no sales tax)
12,000 Rent and utilities (no sales tax)
6,000 Everything else, subject to 8% local sales tax ($8.20/person/day)
Now lets tote up their taxes:
$ 1,798 Social security tax (6.2%)
420 Medicare tax (1.45%)
1,150 Federal tax (standard deduction)
560 State tax
480 Local sales tax
2,000 Real estate tax passed on in their rent by landlord
6,408 Total Tax = 22% tax rate
Do you think a 22% tax rate for people living hand to mouth is too little? Shouldn’t the guy who got rich off the sweat of their brows pay more?
7 December 2007, on 1:13 am
> Capital gains is a category of income which is taxed at a lower rate than “ordinary income,” but it is income nevertheless, and it goes on your 1040 on line 13.
I was generalizing the point that the truely rich people (who everyone thinks is the ones that get hit when people talk about taxing the rich) aren’t the ones affected by raising the general income tax rates. My point is they should be saying “we want to raise taxes on the middle/upper-middle class”, because the truely rich people avoid paying the 50% rate and instead pay the 15% rate for C.G.
> So, again, if the whole shebang is revenue neutral, and rich people get a reduction, then who picks up the difference?
Well first of all, with the elimination of 90% of compliance costs, over $238 billion is restored to the economy. The 18% of taxpayers who no longer decided they would pay taxes. People that don’t pay income tax now such as drug dealers etc. And a large amount of other reasons why it works out I assume. Like I’ve been saying its not just out of thin air. Its well-respected by tons of top economists.
Your example under FairTax:
29,000 income
4,697 Prebate (fairtax.org 2007 couple)
33,697 spendable
6,000 in taxable purchases (fairtax/state/local)
1,380 FairTax (23% of 6000)
560 State tax (x% of 6000 — dont know how you got it so im just leaving it here)
480 Local sales tax (8% of 6000)
2,000 Real estate tax passed on in their rent by landlord (i honestly have no clue if this goes away or not, so im leaving it in)
4,420 Total Tax (15.25% of income, 13% considering prebate)
The other way to look at this is they paid 4,420 in taxes and then got 4,697 back in the prebate, so they actually made money.
> Do you think a 22% tax rate for people living hand to mouth is too little?
No its too much. For everyone.
> Shouldn’t the guy who got rich off the sweat of their brows pay more?
They do pay more — much much MUCH more. However, should they pay a higher percentage? No.
Let me know if I made an error here. I don’t believe I did, but the comparison looks absurdly good for my point.
7 December 2007, on 2:17 pm
Let me know if I made an error here.
Near as I can figure, nothing in these folks budget is exempted from the “Fair Tax”, so the 23% would be applied to the entire $33,697 spendable income, equals $7,750. Add in the local and state taxes, and subtract the rebate, and you have:
7,750 Fair Tax
+560 State tax
+480 Local sales tax 8% on non-food items
+2,000 Effective real estate tax via higher rent
-4,697 Prebate
——-
6,093 Total tax, = 21% of income (29k)
How about the couple who earns $10 million per year and spends $1 million of it?
230,000 Fair Tax
+680,000 Maximum State tax
+80,000 Maximum Local sales tax 8%
+40,000 Real estate tax
-4,697 Prebate
——-
1,025,303 Total tax, = 10% of income (10 million)
Not “fair.”
Say the rich couple’s income was all from cap gains. That makes their federal income tax currently 1.5 million (give or take), and with the other taxes added in - 2.3 million. So they now pay the famous 23% of income in total taxes, where the so-called “Fair Tax” drops their rate to 10%. Sweet.
7 December 2007, on 2:27 pm
Under Fair Tax, maybe the unemployed accountants and IRS workers will labor at setting up an underground black market/barter economy. Or not, but someone (or everyone) will. People will go to Canada or Mexico to buy a car or other large purchases. Anyone who already owns their house will never sell - they’ll just work out a swap with somebody else in the same predicament. Native American reservations (sovereign nations) are now doing a booming business in tax-free gas and cigarettes - watch them add retail outlets to their business models.
7 December 2007, on 4:03 pm
> Near as I can figure, nothing in these folks budget is exempted from the “Fair Tax”, so the 23% would be applied to the entire $33,697 spendable income, equals $7,750.
No, thats the current system your thinking of at 23%. This is not on income, its on spending. So if you are saying that the food category you said was untaxed initially (which I didnt understand anyway, but thats ok) is now taxed then total taxable in the fairtax with your first example is food (7,072) + everything else (6,000), so 23% of that is 3,006 instead of the 1,380 i said. That makes total tax 6046 instead of 4,420. And after prebate is factored in its only 1350 in taxes paid.
I guess we just dont agree on what “fair” is. I think allowing people to save their money like this is great.
There are also massive economy shifts that would take place if this is implemented, changing the whole dynamics. Its a bit tough to use current thinking and apply it to this model. For example, making the US a 0 tax place creates a tax haven for business abroad. Right now we deter businesses abroad from coming here, and people here go other places to start businesses. This completely reverses that. Instead of being a huge importer we become a huge exporter. Instead of losing jobs to other countries like we see happen every day, we keep jobs here.
7 December 2007, on 5:50 pm
Joe, I don’t see where fair tax doesn’t cover rent and utilities. It certainly covers food and medical expenses. In which case, FT would apply to every penny they spend. I have yet to see a detailed list of what spending ISN’T Fair Taxable, maybe you can supply a link?
And you’re right, we don’t agree an what “fair” is. It’s the fundamental difference between a progressive populist and a conservative, and we won’t convince each other. But thanks for the civil discourse, anyway. I am more conversant on the details of this insane scheme than I was before, lol.
It looks like Huckabee has developed some serious embarassments in his campaign since we started this discussion, so hopefully (from my perspective) all this will be a moot point.
8 December 2007, on 3:51 pm
op99,
FairTax FAQ page
Excerpt: What is taxed?
The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A rebate makes the effective rate progressive.
Im not 100% sure on the details, but used items arent taxed, brand new houses may be taxed whereas existing ones wouldnt be, i dont think rent would be taxed since its not new, etc. A breakdown of these would indeed be good.
Re huckabee, there are definitely some attacks going on right now. I’ve supported him since the beginning, way before he was polling as well as he is now. So I saw these attacks at an earlier level before anyone cared about him. The net result is they dont hold up very well. I mean, they are good attacks — but anyone who does some background research see’s right through it. That in itself is an issue for anyone’s campaign… people usually don’t do the research and instead believe the attack. We’ll see how it turns up this round.