Just Say No to Mike Huckabee
By Jlovell2611 Posted in Archived — Comments (71) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With the avalanche of information out there, I can't understand how anyone can say that Mike Huckabee is the most consistent conservative in this race.
The Arkansas Leader
November 30, 2007Ernie Dumas writes: Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.
Clinton tax increases
- Increased the general sales tax from 3 percent to 4 per- cent (Act 63 of special session of 1983)- Increased sales tax by half of 1 percent and extended the tax to used vehicles (Act 3 of 1991)
- Increased the corporate income tax from 6 to 6.5 percent for corporations with net incomes greater than $100,000 (Act 1052 of 1991)
- Levied a 16 percent tax on snuff (yes, there are a few people who still dip snuff) (Act 628 of 1987)
- Levied a 25-cent tax on each pack of cigarette papers (yes, there are people who still roll their own) (Act 1045 of 1987)
- Increased the cigarette tax from 17.75 cents a pack to 21 cents a pack (Act 399 of 1983)
- Increased the cigarette tax by a penny a pack (Act 1211 of 1991)...
Huckabee tax increases
- Imposed an income tax surcharge of 3 percent on tax liabilities of individuals and domestic and foreign corporations (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003). (It was temporary until revenues improved. The legislature repealed it in 2005.)- Increased the sales tax by 1/8 of one percent by initiated act (but it was a personal campaign by Huckabee, who campaigned across the state for it and took a celebrated bass boat trip for 4 days down the Arkansas River holding press conferences in each river city to urge passage of the act)
- Increased the sales tax by one-half of 1 percent (Act 1492 of 1999)
- Increased the sales tax by 7/8ths of 1 percent and expand the sales tax to many services previously exempt from the tax (Act 107, 2nd special session of 2003)
- Collected a 2 percent tax on chewing tobacco, cigars, package tobacco, cigarette papers and snuff (Act 434 of 1997)
- Levied an additional excise tax of 7 percent on tobacco (Act 38 of 1st special session of 2003)...
- Increased the tax on cigarettes by 25 cents a pack (Act 38, 1st special session of 2003)...
- Increased the tax on gasoline by 3 cents a gallon (Act 1028 of 1999)
- Increased the tax on diesel by 4 cents a gallon (Act 1028 of 1999) Note: Contrary to what Huckabee has said repeatedly in debates, speeches and TV shows, the 1999 gasoline and diesel taxes were not submitted to the voters and approved by 80 per cent of them. It was never submitted to a vote. It was the governor's bill and it became law without a vote of the people. What the voters did approve in 1999 was a bond issue for interstate highway reconstruction but it did not involve a tax increase. Existing taxes and federal receipts were pledged to retire the bonds.
- Increased the driver's license by $6 a person, from $14 to $20 (Act 1500 of 2001)
So which raised taxes more? It is hard to quantify. If you measured the increases in the revenue stream, the Huckabee tax cuts far exceeded Clinton's but that would be unfair because the economy had grown and the same penny of tax would produce far more under Huckabee.
But if you look at the major taxes, I see the aggregate Huckabee taxes as greater, especially if you deduct the 4 cent gasoline and diesel taxes that Clinton vetoed in 1985 and that the legislature enacted over his veto.
Anyway, the sales tax is the big revenue producer. Both raised it by 1.5 cents on the dollar and both expanded it to cover a myriad of services. Clinton raised motor fuel taxes a little more, Huckabee cigarette taxes a lot more.
A further note: Huckabee claims credit for a major tax cut in 1997, saying it was the first tax cut in Arkansas history (there had been many prior to that) and that he forced the Democratic legislature to curtail its impulse to always raise taxes.
The facts: The omnibus income tax cut bill of 1997 was proposed by Gov. Jim Guy Tucker in the spring of 1996. It had multiple (7) features, all aimed at relief for middle-class families or the elderly. He asked interim legislative committees to expand on his plan. Tucker then resigned before the legislature convened after his conviction on Whitewater-related charges, and Huckabee took office.
At the legislative session that followed, the Democratic caucus of the House (88 of the 100 members) made the Tucker tax cuts its chief program. The bill was introduced with 83 sponsors (all Democrats) and all Democrats voted for it. It was unopposed. Huckabee's tax cut was to give each taxpayer a check for $25 each fall, saying it would help offset the burden of sales taxes on groceries (the repeal of which he repeatedly opposed). The legislature rejected Huckabee's plan and passed the Tucker bill. Huckabee signed it into law.
The 94 tax cuts that he said he fathered are similarly misleading. The vast majority of those were the usual exemptions and modifications of various taxes and fees that the legislature enacts every time it meets. They were not a part of Huckabee's program with a few exceptions. Rather, Democratic legislators sponsored them, usually at the behest of whatever special interest benefited, and Huckabee signed them when they hit his desk. If you did a similar summary of Clinton's years he could claim probably well over 100 tax cuts. Every Arkansas governor since World War II could claim dozens each.
If you counted all the tax benefits extended to corporations under the incentives enacted by the legislature under Clinton -- and they were part of his programs, especially in 1983, 1985 and 1989 -- the tax cuts would dwarf those under Huckabee.
To View The Entire Piece, Please Visit :
http://www.arkansasleader.com/2007/11/editorialswhos-biggest-tax-raiser....
How the heck is this guy first in Iowa?
he might have the best chance to win the National election, because.....he has a vision for America, that he can articulate well. It may not be mine or yours, but he can make so people can see. His concepts of verticle government and the fair tax is making him attractive to many people. I have read all of the stuff in your post a hundred times. A lot of it is over-stated, and just drive people to him. Spend more time promoting someone who can win and you can do more to keep him from being the nominee. This stuff will not work, why? Because people read both sides of the arguement, not just yours. No, he is not the most conservative, he is more of a moderate. But many people are beginning to believe he can win.
It's a liberal vision. It's the soft socialism that Bush pushed for 8 years. It's a "feel-good" vision because Huck promises to spend more money and fix your problems. And if we think we're going to win by out-governmenting the Democrats we're done. Why vote Huckabee when you can get the government to do all of what Huck wants that and more with Hillary or Obama or Silky Pony?
When the NY Times says his record's not that bad, running screaming in terror. They admit he raised lots of taxes and admit that the tax bill at the end of his term was higher than at the start. They seem to forgive that because he turned a deficit into a surplus - but here's 2 problems - first, why wasn't Huckabee urging new cuts to return the surplus to the people it belongs to - the Arkansas taxpayer. And second, claiming that Huckabee's tax record led to the surplus is only buying the liberal assumption - that raising taxes increases revenue.
And how "bipartisan" a tax increase was is useless. So what? All that tells me is that the Republicans in the legislature were just as bad as Huckabee or too chicken to stand up to him. He had choices and some of them were bad choices to have to make in the first place. But if the state was so bad off, why was he running around promoting new taxes to fund state parks? The roads and education were so bad - why was he wasting his time on that? To me it shows an inability, or an unwillingness, to prioritize. Huck wanted it all, and the folks in Arkansas are paying for it, and paying dearly.
“All you have to do is visit Democrat Underground and you get the idea of why the media is hyping Huckabee as the front runner in Iowa. The media has selected Huckabee as the easiest target in a national campaign to ridicule and demean. They can use Huckabee, not only to attack personally, but to attack social conservatives and label the whole Republican party as a bunch of out of touch with reality bumpkins. Then you add Huckabee’s pro-amnesty stance and his fiscal irresponsibility and he has nothing to to fight back on. He would be neutralized within one month of winning the nomination. DU has bragged that they could put up any one and beat Huckabee.” - Eva
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934041/posts?page=77#77
Why nominate one tax-and-spender just to watch him go down in flames against Hillary?
http://taxhikemike.org/
Huckabee is the only republican that makes me think about voting for Hillary or just sitting home.
I can not understand your position. Voting for Hillary or staying home would make matters worse, in my opinion. How could you think either would be better??
What is worse than a liberal democrat president? not much, but a squishy Republican president with a democrat controlled congress just might be. Lyndon Johnson created the Great Society, but Nixon funded and expanded it.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Right now, we have a (supposedly) Republican President who keeps coming out with liberal programs (NCLB, MC part D). When they fail, we get blamed. I'm sick of conservatives being blamed for liberal policies and I will not vote for Huckabee.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
I agree.
If we elect Huckabee in 2008 with a Democrat Congress (and a Democrat Congress has probably already been "baked into the cake."), we will get 4 years of higher taxes and increaseed government spending. Conservatives and libertarians will then look back at the Bush years of cuts in capital gains, dividend and income taxes and years of "rock-ribbed conservatism" by comparison.
The economy will sink under the weight of the new national sales tax. Sure, right now, Huckabee says he wants the new national sales tax rate of 23 percent as a replacemnt for the federal income tax. But once in office he'll decide that in order to "reach across the aisle," he'll accept the national sales tax as an addition to the income tax.
The Republican party will get blamed for the collapse in the economy, the higher unemployment rates, the bread lines, the soup kitchens. That's when Huckabee will really get to enjoy himself. He's basically at his best (and his most compassionate) when he's spending other people money, money confiscated via higher taxes.
Then the 2010 election rolls around. The Republicans will probably lose about 6 US Senate seats and about 25 US House seats.
Then the 2012 election rolls around. Again, the Republicans will get clobbered because these results are due to "Republican policies" (or so says the media and the people don't know any better). By January 2013 we have a Democrat president and a Congress that is about 60 percent Democrat.
I'd rather just take my medicine now and vote for Hillary. At least then, when socialistic policies are implemented, the Democrats will be held responsible. With Huckabee, we will end up with two socialistic parties, one pro-abortion, one anti-abortion.
Huckabee is a democrat in republican clothing. His only redemming value is he is pro-life. Huckabee destroyed the republican party in Arkansas,now he wants to destroy the republican party nationally. Huckabee is to Fiscall Conservatives as Rudy is to Social Conservatives. Each pretends to change their position, but neither is believed.
I also believe in fair play. Real men look you in the eye when they have something to say, coward stab you in the back.
Mike Huckabee's campaign is being aided by an independent group run by a former top aide at the NRSC and funded in part by a group of retired Procter & Gamble executives in Ohio
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1207/ProHuckabee_group_reve...
And I don't believe that he is not behind this.
Supports Illegal immigration
Is a Socialist
Tax and Spend liberal
Believes god has ordained him to be president
as Ark. Gov. and his Democrat successor lowered them because Huck went too far.
Nobody can out-spend, out-tax, and out-pander the Democrats in DC.
Nobody. But Huckabee sure seems to have a record of trying!
Just yesterday people were saying that the difference between the opposition to Rudy and the opposition to Mike was that people here were saying they wouldn't vote for Rudy in the general, while with Mike they were saying that other groups wouldn't vote for Mike in the general.
As far as I've noticed, you're the first on RedState to proclaim that you wouldn't vote for Mike in the general.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
So you are saying that we need a moderate to win? LOL
You remember that little battle we had where we had to go through hell to stop the "shamnesty" drive?
Bush would have signed that sham. I can totally see Huckleberry doing the same.
This is time to make sure we don't go through that again. We need a conservative in office, not a wanna be.
Mike Huckabee is flat out not a Reagan Conservative. But don't just take my word for it...
1. People believe that he is the best option for the Socon movement (this is why I am supporting him)
2. Fairtax
3. The guy is just likeable. People here him talk and they like the guy. I heard Hannah Storm say after Gov. Huckabee's Morning show interview, "he is so disarming". Most people don't read redstate or other political websites (I have no factual evidence for this, just an assumption on my part). They listen to someone speak, if they like him they go to the persons website to read about their issues. If they like what they see, they vote for the individual.
Gov. Huckabee is the most likeable and best communicating candidate our there. For the average voter, this is big.
He's likeable, but he'll pick my pocket and let the US be overrun with illegals while I'm "liking him."
I'm not liking that.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
(Potty humor aside - linking "Fairtax" with "Number 2" is most deliciously appropriate. Moving on...)
I'm wondering if you can relate to me what is Mr. Huckabee's "Plan B" for when the Fairtax doesn't even get out of the first committee on The Hill it needs to get through - that being Charlie Harlem's House committee on Ways and Means.
'Cause I'll tell you what I think it is - Oh, the central tenant of my "economic reform package" got shot down? Oops, too bad - oh well, gotta pay for all that new "compassionate" "conservative" nanny state so sorry rich CEO and Club for Greed-types who make too much money anyway.
After all, it's all about the children.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
for or against Gov. Huckabee. I am a Huckabee supporter. I was simply answering the question that the op asked at the end. Can you argue with my analysis. Another post could be made for your question.
with why you are supporting Huckabee. I ask the same question of everyone who lists "Fairtax" as one of their top reasons for supporting him - I just want to know what is "Plan B", cause Fairtax is a non-starter. Haven't gotten an answer yet.
I'll end the threadjack with that. Sorry.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
because of the fair tax. I am saying that is the reason why people support Gov. Huckabee. I support him for his stance on social issues. I am intrigued with the fair tax, but have not done any research on it and probably will not. But, I do know that many of Huckabee's supporters support him solely on his stance of the fair tax. That is why I listed it as one of the reasons.
Who lie to my face or attack my character (i.e. I'm probably just racist if I don't like his stance on immigration... I'm probably just greedy if I don't like his fiscal liberalism)... so I'm really not getting #3. I've heard it plenty of times, but I don't see the likability there.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Have you ever known anyone that does not lie? I am by no means justifying lying. God has said that lying lips are an abomination to Him. But, if your criteria for whether you like someone or not is if they lied to you, you will find very few people to like.
Gov. Huckabee has that southern charm that many are fond of. He has the persona of the type of guy that people would want to sit down with for a cup of coffee.
There is a reason that he always comes out shining after the debates. He cracks jokes and he makes things easy to understand. He is just a first-impression likeable man.
Yea everybody lies at one point or another in their life. This isn't about if he lied to grandma about who broke the vase when he was 8 years old. Or lying to his wife about something 5 years ago. This is about lying to me during the campaign. Not everybody lies to me... and even those who do lie to me don't usually lie about things that are so easy to disprove as to insult my intelligence. Huckabee has done this on multiple occasions.
Trust is a pretty essential part of likability. I have about as much trust in the man as I do in WJC. And I like him about as much too.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
before you looked into his record? Not that you would have voted for him, but that you thought he was a nice guy.
I was pretty familiar with the record before I was familiar with the guy. I might have liked him if I wasn't familiar with his record.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yes, and Slick Willy had it,too. Reckon what they put in the grits in Arkansas to make so many likable, tax-hiking, socialism-leaning, God-mentioning, politicians? Being POTUS is not a "Mr. Congeniality" contest. In today's world, it would suit me just fine to have someone with all the charm of a pit bull in that office--as long as they were a true conservative. And Bubba Jr. can be charming all day long, but he's no conservative.
1. He's not really likeable. The more I find about him, the less I like.
In contrast with Romney, who the more you find out about his record, his accomplishments, his
2. Fair tax - his support for it is a *gimmick*. It will never pass and Huck knows it so Huck supported it to get a free ride on the Iowa FairTax organization.
Hucks real tax record is abysmal - he's a tax-and-spender, not a fiscal conservative. Since the fair tax will never work with a big spender in the White House, Huckabee getting nominated will mean NO PROGRESS on tax reform.
If you want tax reform - Tax Choice Act, which Fred Thompson supports is the way to go.
http://taxhikemike.org/
3. As for socon side of it, he's soft-on-crime, soft-on-illegals, suggest that far from being a rea conservative of *any* type, he is a pro-life liberal.
SoCons are better with either a) a real conservative through and through Hunter or Tancredo or b) unifying and electable mainstream conservatives like Thompson or Romney.
I wish you well then. Show me the way, and I will listen.
Hell will freeze over when any of Bubba Jr's initiatives get through the Congress. HLA: DOA. FMA: DOA. FairTax: DOA. All require constitutional amendments that will not get even a majority in the Senate or the House, let alone the 2/3 required. And forget about the State Legislatures.
BJ will easily be the most divisive candidate the Republican Party could possibly nominate. A nanny stater who will make the last seven years growth of government look like Calvin Coolidge's administration. A SoCon who will get the abortion lobby so worked up he'll never get a conservitive judge confirmed - assuming he would ever nominate a conservative judge. If you think for one minute that BJ is a conservative, you are a fool. The guy is a pro-life socialist.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Sorry, it was directed to first-always.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
When you overstate your case it is hard to take you seriously, and that is what many do not seem to get. Mike Huckabee is not a pro-life socialist. He may will be a moderate on some things, but a socialist. When you say such things you do not win people over, they just question you. Of course, you will think I am stupid for saying such a thing. Just a friendly suggetsion. And yes I am a one hour wonder. I have been reading here for quite a while. Just thought I would jump in. Might jump out to. And I am sure that will make you feel better. It will not change what is happening. You may think many people who are supporting Mike Huckabee are not informed. I would want to bet on that one.
He's no moderate on:
Spending.
Taxes.
Expansion of government programs.
Immigration.
The guy is to the left of Hillary on every one of those issues. I don't think most of the people who post here in support of Bubba Jr. are "not informed". I think they're one issue votes who don't give a damn about anything but their pet issue, BJ sounds good on it, even though he will be unable to actually deliver on it.
Also, go take a class in reading comprehension. I didn't note that I thought you were stupid. I'm very clear about that when I do it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You did not call me stupid. And, I am not a one issue voter. Yes, I am pro-life. And yes, I think it is a national problem, not at states right guy. It does not make me left of Hillary. I also believe that you have to fix the roads and make the schools better. I do not believe Mike Huckabee is left of Hillary on Immigration. And it will take someone with Huckabees gifts to pass through any major change. The fair tax will be difficult, but it's time has come. I do believe Huckabee's vision for verticle politics has a real chance. I am tired of the left-right divide myself. Define what you mean by socialist.
NOUN: An advocate of socialism.
And SOCIALISM:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Bubba Jr. is on record on any number of fronts that we should be centralizing parts of the economy. You can bet your socks that he will be willing to sit down with Democrats and "negotiate" a solution to our health care "crisis" - for the children. He's opposed to school choice and will grow the DoEd. He's already on record griping about CEO's salaries, I can't wait to find out where that one leads. He supports a path to citizenship for illegal aliens and is way beyond squishy on enforcement. Not only has he never done it, he's never called for it. For starters.
Being "tired of the left-right divide" is code for "I'm taking this comfy looking seat on the left side of the aisle." How in the world do you think that electing a lightweight like BJ will end that?
And finally, if you think that BJ can deal with the current Democratic leadership in Congress, I've got a bridge you'll just love. He will get his lunch eaten on a routine basis.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
They were interviewing Iowa Republicans on how they will vote.
One actually said that taxes is the biggest issue for him; they are too high, so he is voting Huckabee. I kid you not.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
"I was listening to NPR today..."
I am sorry to hear that. :)
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Also helpful to know how the case will be tried against you.
Funny, Huck is now getting the same sort of coverage in the MSM that RuPaul was getting about a month ago (fauning profile in the Boston Globe-Democrat, NPR slobering all over him...). Oh well, any port in the storm for them as well, I suppose.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I know, but I would rather read a transcript of an NPR broadcast than listen to one.
P.S. "He who knows himself, and the enemy will never know defeat in a thousand battles." ---Sun Tzu---
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Have you ever noticed how NPR can take the most amazing and important news and current events and present them in a way that puts you to sleep?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Huckabee's stance on the Fair Tax issue. I understand it, and it would lower everyone's tax burden if inacted. And I realize it is a big if. So the guy may not be as dumb as you thing he is.
1) The "Fairtax" is supposed to be revenue neutral
2) It is highly regressive - meaning that people who are not likely getting seriously hammered by the income tax will almost certainly see their taxes go up under the "Fairtax"
3) It. Is. Never. Going. To. Pass.
OK, the last one had nothing to do with your comment, but it's nonetheless accurate.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
1) Being revenue neutral is not the same thing as keeping everyone's tax burden the same. Since the current tax system costs many many billions in compliance costs (as well as the funding to keep the IRS going), a much simpler tax code like the FairTax can be revenue-neutral yet lower everyone's tax burden, if you count tax compliance expense as part of the tax burden.
2) The FairTax is not a regressive tax. Read a bloody dictionary. The people somehow totally avoiding the current system will have to pay more taxes, but isn't that a good thing?
3) Of course it's never going to pass if enough people like you keep repeating this mantra. I thought Republicans were supposed to be optimistic about America and it was the Dems that were pessimistic.
You'll have to do better than this to discredit the FairTax.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
with the FairTax isn't necessarily the program.
My problem with it is this...
#1. Requires repeal of the 16th Amendment. Don't see that happening.
#2. Is a complete top-to-bottom overhaul of the tax system. Since the current congress is roughly 50% liberal Democrats, 20% squishy Republicans who don't know what day it is and some other folks who can find their way to the lunchroom without too much help, the final product isn't going to look ANYTHING like Neil Boorz presents it.
#3. It may be the best thing since sliced bread, but by the time it's implemented it will be mouldy bread.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Wait! It gets worse:
- Since the current congress is...
...just like all other Congresses in wanting to preserve those things which (a) make CongressCritters important, and (b) bring in the campaign cash, no Congress will ever vote for any system that takes away their right to insert language into tax bills like, "except that any cement plant located on the Eastern shore of the Monongahela River shall be exempt.."
Putting those little twists and turns into the tax code brings in a huge chunk, if not a majority, of the loot. They are going to give that up? Not in our lifetimes.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Never say never. Significant, and consistent pressure from constituents can work wonders upon even the worst Congresscritters.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
We have 535 people in Congress, each with their own staff. All we do is pay them to compromise and write Word docs that some folks call bills. Is it any wonder that our current tax code is so freaking complex? And we're the ones that pay for their computers, Microsoft Word, printers and paper.
You really want to solve the tax problem? Create a solution that allows for hundreds of thousands of pages of complexity and adendums that only make the system better. Either that, or get Congress to fix the problem, then fire them all.
A flat tax is better (no repeal of 16th necessary) and no wiggle room. And best of all...
...we don't get people used to getting a government check every month.
==== 13 ====
Ultimately the flat tax is every bit (perhaps more) as vulnerable to incremental dismemberment (I assume that is what you mean by "wiggle room") as the FairTax.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
#2 I think the FairTax strategy is to use ever increasing amounts of constituent pressure to get Congresscritters to vote the right way. Ultimately that sounds like a bottom up (grassroots) approach to tax reform.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
But selling the FairTax as a tax cut when it is revenue neutral is not the way to go.
I'm aware of the figures out there showing massive income tax compliance costs, but I just don't buy into them. The numbers are simply not believable. There is significant cost, but hundreds of billions a year? No way.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
1) If, as the original commenter claims, "everyone's taxes will go down", how can Fairtax be revenue neutral, eh?
2) Sales taxes are regressive by their very nature.
3) It's never going to pass because
a) The 16th is never getting repealed
b) The "prebate" is a ludicrously stupid, unworkable and anti-conservative idea.
So there.
I am not, by any stretch of the mind, opposed to some sort of national sales tax - in principle. But people a whole heck of a lot smarter than I have already done a pretty fair job discreting your precious going-nowhere "reform".
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
You've confused 'revenue neutral' with 'tax burden staying the same'.
All that revenue neutral means is that it produces the same revenue for the government that the system that it's replacing would have. In addition to the income tax, this includes the fairly heavily regressive Social Security tax, all the misc. business taxes that cause companies to move their headquarters offshore, the death tax that's ruined so many family farms, need I go on?
But the tax burden isn't just what you pay in taxes, it's the time you spent doing your taxes, or the money you spent on your tax lawyer or your copy of TurboTax, plus the time you spent saving tax records. And heaven help you if you get audited. That's all part of the tax burden. Ever see a business do something "for tax purposes"? The difference to their bottom line between what they ended up with after what they did for tax purposes and what they could have ended up if they hadn't had to worry about the taxes is part of the tax burden, too.
If you have any conception of how much businesses have to deal with taxes, you can easily believe how that total tax burden beyond just the paying of taxes can easily rise into the hundreds of billions. Is it so unrealistic that it'd come to a couple thousand dollars per person? How many tax attorneys are there? What's the gross revenue of H&R Block and TurboTax?
The FairTax makes that colossally huge pile of crap all go away.
Plus, it replaces all that with a tax that tourists and illegals pay as well, broadening the tax base.
So I guess you're right in one sense; for foreign tourists and illegal aliens, their taxes most definitely will go up.
Oh, and I'd really like to know how you can explain that the government taking money directly out of everyone's paycheck is somehow more conservative than the government giving every citizen a monthly stipend, which is what the FairTax prebate is. You seem to forget that the progressive income tax was listed by Karl Marx as one of the essentials for a totalitarian society; how in the world could you think the FairTax is more anti-conservative than that!
Regarding your urls:
- Link 1: Can't do math (confuses 23 vs 30 percent); somehow thinks that there would be more tax avoidance under the FairTax than there is under the current system (tell me, how much do you think the top 100 retailers in the US would try to cheat on the FairTax? They'd be collecting a huge percentage of the total tax); finally indulges in the same kind of negativism you've already blathered about.
- Link 2:
- Complains that the FairTax will continue to fund wasteful government programs (c'mon, that's not its fight; that's like telling someone who escaped a hurricane that it didn't do a thing to help their arthritis);
- complains that it's revenue-neutral instead of a tax cut (overlooks the blatantly obvious fact that businesses won't be paying any taxes, thus taking US business climate from one of the most heavily taxed of all the industrialized nations to the least, and that's going to do the country more good than any tax cut);
- makes some kind of bizarre point about how that it's sometimes good for the government to be inefficient (what? in dealing with our money? what are they smoking?);
- supposed lie #1 takes issue with a bit of hyperbole the FairTax book uses, regarding it being a voluntary tax-- but their example of 'can't buy used food' fails to take into account that you could, y'know, grow your own food;
- lie #2 is again can't do math (confuses 23 and 30 percent);
- lie #3 complains that the IRS doesn't really go away, it just turns into collecting the Fair Tax (ignores that individuals will never ever have to deal with it, since the tax is entirely collected by businesses, plus the seemingly obvious fact that when thousands of pages of tax code are replaced by less than 200, that costs of government bureaucracy are probably going to go down proportionally);
- problem #1 complains that posting prices post-FairTax makes it a hidden tax that's just as bad as the current set of hidden taxes (ignores that if anyone really wants to see how much tax they're paying, all they have to do is look at any sales receipt and look where it says "FairTax: $xx.xx");
- problem #2 complains that the FairTax is progressive and that somehow makes it as bad as the progressive income tax (ignores that, well, it's not an income tax like Marx specified, and that the progressive element the prebate adds roughly balances out the mildly regressive nature that sales taxes tend to have);
- problem #3 takes issue somehow with the FairTax paying Social Security instead of payroll taxes (ignores that fixing Social Security isn't the FairTax's fight), and with some people possibly getting more back via the prebate than they pay into the system via the FairTax (huh? they're still paying taxes, and if they're buying so little stuff that they're not even covering what they're getting via the prebate, then I for one am happy to let them have it-- that's being awfully impoverished, people, and if the FairTax has the side effect of giving the poorest a leg up, why in the world are they having a problem with that?);
- problem #4 complains that service businesses will now have to collect taxes (ok, I'll grant that one, however it's still just startup costs);
- problem #5 complains that the FairTax will be added to services (well, if it didn't, you'd end up with businesses claiming that the actual taxable cost of an item was $1 and the other $299 was services and thus shouldn't be taxable, and consider that the income used to pay those services will become untaxed);
- problem #6 complains that the FairTax gets rid of non-profits by taxing them (I think they're exempt, but I'll have to check on this one);
- problem #7 complains that the FairTax somehow makes it easier to raise taxes (how? it's easier to keep track of One Tax Rate that the government can mess with, than the hundreds of taxes we have to deal with now, where they can just put another tax on the 'rich', etc.);
- problem #8 complains that it makes it easier for states to raise taxes (again, the whole argument about how the FairTax reduces tax compliance costs can be duplicated analogously for state tax codes, and anyways, this is an issue beyond its scope);
- problem #9 complains about the transition cost (ok there'll be a transition cost, but it'll be a one-time thing, and the savings from just the first year of not having to deal with the old tax system will cover it);
- problem #10 complains that exempting tuition creates an exemption, which will just lead to more exemptions (education is an awfully broad category, I don't see anything else being able to make such a case);
- problem #11 somehow thinks that there'll be massive fraud with the FairTax (more than the current system? I seriously doubt it), and tries to suggest that the government can't send money to people without criminals getting it (uh, hello, they do this all the time with Social Security and disability and all kinds of things);
- problem #12 thinks that individuals are going to have to collect the FairTax (no, that's just for businesses with a tax ID, the same way that individuals don't have to collect state sales taxes now);
- problem #13 brings up the Sixteenth Amendment (never mind that the FairTax could be passed on the condition that the Sixteenth be repealed, problem solved);
- problem #14 brings up gas taxes and airline taxes (don't know about that one);
- problem #15 again complains that the FairTax doesn't lower government revenue (never mind all the inefficiencies it strips away, also this isn't its fight);
- problem #16 seems to claim that all taxes are evil and thus the FairTax is evil (now we're getting into paranoid territory);
- problem #17 seems to think that the prebate is a permanent welfare program (huh? and in any case, if someone's that poor that the prebate really matters, I'm glad for them to have it). Whew.
- Link 3:Can't do math (confuses 30 and 23); confuses being revenue neutral with the tax burden, as I went into detail refuting previously-- this covers the supposed amount those from $40K-$200K would pay; and somehow thinks that massively simplifying the tax system makes it *less* fair (huh?).
- Link 4:Somehow thinks that Ron Paul's lack of an endorsement of the FairTax is meaningful; brings up the Sixteenth Amendment (see previous); goes for the 'individuals will have to collect the FairTax' line (again, see previous); mentions the gas tax (ditto); claims that it'll make it easier to raise taxes (ditto); complains about it not doing anything about Social Security (ditto); complains about the IRS turning into a FairTax collection office (ditto); complains about some people getting more than they pay with the prebate (ditto); complains that the FairTax doesn't reduce taxes (hello, revenue neutral, and, ditto).
So what's left standing? A few misc taxes (airlines, gas), and a one-time charge. Pretty thin gruel to stake your opposition on.
So there back at you. What else have you got? Because I just knocked your big tower of blocks all down.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
The prebate makes the FairTax a "progressive tax."
P.S. The FairTax lowers marginal taxes upon savings, and work.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-Fundamentals_and_facts-070122.pdf
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
How many do you know that will sign their name to what you just said?
Are you an economist not employed by Washington? If you are do you know of 80 economist that agree with you? Heck, you might have 10 times that many.
Do you have any?
I'm not an economist but I have 80 respected economists who agree with me.
You are welcome to say what you want. I say you do not know what you are talking about.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Open_Letter.pdf
Jim Tomasik
"The guy is a pro-life socialist."
I wouldn't go that far, but that's closer to truth than calling him conservative. He's pro-life, nanny-state, tax-and-spend, big-bizness populist, soft-on-crime and soft-on-illegals. I cant tell any difference between this guy and say older generation populist southern liberal Democrats like, say, Democrat Ernest Hollings.
Since I obviously lack the juice necessary to post in RedHot, I'll just post here, in response to Alexham, the following:
You're using the paper that gives us economic opinion from the likes of Krugman, Dowd, Herbert and Rich - presented as "mainstream", by the way - to support your case that Huck's record "isn't that bad"?
Seriously?? (Insert a string of guffaws here.)
Well, any port in a storm, I suppose. Any port in a storm.
Oh, and what Erick said.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Take a simple and cynical reality check. I'd speculate that the average voter spends, at most, 1/100th the time analyzing their political choices as the actively engaged folks on this thread and this site. And I really don't think they're all that rational in their decision making, anyway.
People look for someone they like, they trust, and who they think shares their view of the world. This is why political speeches are carefully tailored to particular audiences to use the appropriate code words to trigger group identification. Clearly, Huck is delivering the right combination of religious references and populist mush to appeal to the folks in Iowa. You can rattle on about tax positions all day, but it may well make no difference whatsoever if someone has decided that Huck is "one of us" and cares more about that than taxes.
Look, I can't say I'm immune from this. Probably few are. I like McCain not simply for his policy positions or some exhaustive recitation of his voting record, but because I admire him as a person and expect that he'd make better choices than the other guys. I'm sure anyone can savage my choice by reciting a litany of dirt of him, but at the end of the day...I still like the guy better than the others and prefer his overall package to Mitt's oiliness and Rudy's mountain of baggage.
Yes...it really is a popularity contest.
An even bigger issue for me is Huckabee's coddling of illegal immigrants.
I remember saying the same things about Bush Sr. and Bob Dole, "socialist", "liberal", etc. Other than eight years of Clinton, I do not have many regrets.
But, I think you guys are missing something great here; Mike Huckabee has the potential to bring conservatism back to the respect that Ronald Reagan gave it in the 1980's. We have not had an articulate and likeable spokesperson for two decades. Mike can soft sell conservatism in a way you blowhards cannot even understand.
We didn't have the Internet or it wasn't being used as it is now when I was using that kind of hyperbole. But the whole world is watching you here. Calling your party's potential nominee a "socialist" is not good for the party or conservative movement. And, like it or not, Huckabee will be called a conservative by the MSM come next year when he is the nominee.
You will look silly in a few months when Hillary the Great Socialist (or Osama her sidekick) is attacking Huckabee as an "evil conservative"... and the unforgiving Internet has your silly words archived.
LS
"It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth." - John Locke
Huckabee minus (Pro-life) = Hillary. I shouldn't have to make that choice. Huckabee will be the death of the republican party just like he killed it in Arkansas.
IF (Huckabee minus (Pro-life) = Hillary) IS TRUE
{
I LIKE MIKE
}
WHEN (Rudy OR Hillary)
{
Abortion++ // Like I trust Rudy to appoint good judges.
}
It also seems to me that Arkansas did not have a thriving Republican party before Mike Huckabee.
and it isn't fair or accurate to call him a socialist.
However, he is the worst of the Republican Top 5 when it comes to taxes, and tied for worst when it comes to immigration.
Lets admit to ourselves that when it comes to keeping taxes low and reintroducing rule of law back to our borders, the best thing you can say about Huck is that he will do what he currently says he will, but his heart is not really in it on those issues. At worst, he will sell out those issues to get some accommodations on the things he really is focused on.
He is a good speaker, but so are a lot of people in history with bad policy ideas. Vote for Huck, and in 18 months we will be lamenting that he is no Bush. We need to go forward, not backward.
The only person in the Top Five who is believeably strong on both taxes and immigration is Fred.
I think Fred will pull a rabit out of Iowa. He nailed that immigration question in the debate, and his campaign should put out an immigration ad that contrasts with the other four.
All that being said, I would still vote for Huck over Hillary, but there is no way I will donate time or money since I would need to save money in order to pay future tax increases.
"But, I think you guys are missing something great here; Mike Huckabee has the potential to bring conservatism back to the respect that Ronald Reagan gave it in the 1980's. We have not had an articulate and likeable spokesperson for two decades. Mike can soft sell conservatism in a way you blowhards cannot even understand."
ROMNEY has the potential to bring conservatism back to the respect that Ronald Reagan gave it in the 1980's. ROMNEY is articulating the strong families, limited Government, and strong military messages.
Huckster is peddling populist pap and running as the uber-Christian.
Reagan never did that. Despite Reagan's faith, he ran as a small Government conservative.
You want that, you can get the real thing in Hunter, or an articulate packaged-in-a-great-executive version of it in Romney.
Not in Huckabee.
"Calling your party's potential nominee a "socialist" is not good for the party or conservative movement. "
The shout-out is needed to wake people up - the time is close at hand! The hour is near!
http://taxhikemike.org/
"Pat Toomey: He’s every bit as bad, and you don’t have to just take our word for it. Jonah Goldberg, you and your fellow editors at National Review, Bob Novak, and John Fund — to name just a few conservative writers — agree that Mike Huckabee is no conservative. You can read the Club’s white paper on our website, but here is a quick summary of Huckabee’s worst hits. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike; gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike; an income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; and higher beer taxes. Huckabee also oversaw a 50-percent increase in spending; happily signed a minimum wage increase and encouraged national Republicans to do the same; favors a national smoking ban, farm subsidies, and a federally mandated arts and music curriculum; opposes private school choice; and employs class-warfare and protectionist language on the campaign trail. Huckabee calls himself an economic conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, but the above list doesn’t sound like either."
"And, like it or not, Huckabee will be called a conservative by the MSM come next year when he is the nominee."
This is the double-whammy with nominating a RINO like Huckabee or Guiliani - the political center of gravity shifts *left* as suddenly its a 'conservative' thing to support in-state tuition for illegals (and Dems will then move on to outbid *that*), support S-CHIP expansion, let the pork flow, etc.
"I remember saying the same things about Bush Sr. and Bob Dole, "socialist", "liberal", etc. Other than eight years of Clinton, I do not have many regrets."
Funny, I have no memory of the word "socialist" being used to describe George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole. Do you have any links on the subject?
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
I am far from a Huckabee supporter.
But when you write, "tax benefits extended to corporations," you give yourself away as a liberal troll.
Could you Huckabee fans at least convince him to see an orthodontist? In a general election, hair and teeth matter.
Huckabee increased spending 65% from 1996 to 2004- per the Club for Growths review of his spending record. Now, huckabee supporters will say this is biased. I am not sure how the spending figure on a state budget from one year to the next can be biased. To compare with the federal budget from 1996-2004, federal spending increased 47%. This data again is from the federal budget, which the government has posted. The free spending last few years of Clinton, with the free spending George W Bush, make Huckabee look like a hero to big government liberals.