Huckabee wants to drop the IRS

[bamacre]

Is this a good idea?

If you're rich, it's great. If you are poor, or even middle class, it's a bad idea.

The less one makes, the bigger the percentage of their income tax is spent. And of course, poor who otherwise would not pay any, or very little, income tax would now pay, and quite a bit.

I think this is a horrible idea, and I can't believe people would support this. I like Paul's idea better. Drop the IRS, replace it with nothing, and cut spending back to what it was 10 years ago.

I don't think people really understand how much money we pay in taxes. Of course we have the federal income tax. Then some states have a state income tax, some have a state sales tax, and some dumbasses live in states with both. Property taxes, wheel taxes. Want a six pack of beer? That's taxed. Cigarettes? Taxed enormously. FICA taxes. Social Security taxes. The list seriously doesn't seem to end.

Americans get their paychecks, and see the amount taken out, but often they fail to see the taxes taken out of the rest as they spend it.

Are Americans ready for a national sales tax? The poor, and even the middle class will NOT be happy. I cannot even believe Huckabee is running with this idea.

 

[fskimospy]

He'll drop it in the general election (in the unlikely event he makes it there) or at least put it on the back burner. He knows as well as we all do that it's a nonstarter. All those national sales tax things tend to be is a massive tax break for the rich, and a horrendous rape job for people living off savings. (I'm looking at all you seniors out there who vote!)

Ron Paul's ideas aren't really any better, but at least they don't rely on Huckabee's moon math to come to their conclusion.

 

[MovingTarget]

Depends on your POV and what you consider "fair". The IRS exists to determine taxes on income as per the sixteenth amendment. They simply perform a function based on a convoluted set of laws that congress has passed. (fair or not, it is still overly complicated and long)

That being said, the sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes imaginable. It affects those lowest on the income scale the most, and they are the ones who can least afford to pay. There are a few states that get a high percentage of their income via sales taxes, and their affect can be seen pretty obviously. The lower and middle classes will spend a far larger amount/percentage of their income on the necessities of life - food, shelter, transport, etc. Those in the upper classes may spend the same amount based on their consumption, but they will barely be hit in comparison. Is this something America wants? Where the burden of taxation is placed largely on the ones least able to afford it? That is a recipe for revolution imho.

The same argument can be applied to the structure of the income tax. The rates for the largest top-dollar brackets were WAY above what we have today. Yet, our economy flourished for decades. Some say a flat tax would be "fair", but the fact is, wealth generates more wealth. This is another subject that is probably not in the scope of this thread though. I'll just say that it is another scheme that income could be taxed, but it still lies within the possible income taxation schemes.

Other taxes include excise taxes, import/export/customs taxes, property taxes, estate taxes (we had a thread on those a while back on the subject of them being a barrier to the creation of an effective ruling-class), etc. The federal government used to be funded largely by property taxes and customs duties. However, would we as a society expect the level of services provided by eliminating a certain type of tax, and thus a pretty large source of funding? For the most part, I think not.

A national sales tax would be a disaster in terms of logistics/tracking. It fluctuates moreso than incomes iirc, and would require a lot of effort to accurately predict/enforce. It would be even worse if it was used as a replacement for the income tax.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I think we should just keep the bloated, overly complicated, Rube Goldbergian system we have now. It's worked great so far. :roll:

A sales tax can work. The fair tax guys talked about issuing everyone a "pre-bate" every month that would effectively offset the sales tax on basic needs such as food, clothes and other staples. I'm not advocating the fair tax here, but there are ways to make a sales tax work.

It couldn't suck any more than our current system.

 

[bamacre]

We need to cut spending, drastically. Our government spends WAY too much money. Much of it wastefully.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre
We need to cut spending, drastically. Our government spends WAY too much money. Much of it wastefully.

Well cut spending on what? Whether you like it or not Americans actually like big government. Sure they might complain about it and say that we should reduce its size... but actions speak far louder then words. People LIKE social security, they LIKE medicare, they LIKE a huge bloated military, large highway systems, etc... etc.

So while I'm sure you don't... and there are certainly plenty of other Americans who want to make the government smaller, I believe you are badly outnumbered. This might not be the country for you.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
We need to cut spending, drastically. Our government spends WAY too much money. Much of it wastefully.

Well cut spending on what? Whether you like it or not Americans actually like big government. Sure they might complain about it and say that we should reduce its size... but actions speak far louder then words. People LIKE social security, they LIKE medicare, they LIKE a huge bloated military, large highway systems, etc... etc.

So while I'm sure you don't... and there are certainly plenty of other Americans who want to make the government smaller, I believe you are badly outnumbered. This might not be the country for you.

I don't think it's that lots of people want or like bigger government... they just want something for nothing. So as long as 50%+ of the population is paying little or no taxes (it's the other guy getting screwed, not me) and receiving the benefits, where is the incentive to demand smaller, less expensive government? It winds up being the opposite. Bigger government means "more for me" in most cases.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
We need to cut spending, drastically. Our government spends WAY too much money. Much of it wastefully.

Well cut spending on what? Whether you like it or not Americans actually like big government. Sure they might complain about it and say that we should reduce its size... but actions speak far louder then words. People LIKE social security, they LIKE medicare, they LIKE a huge bloated military, large highway systems, etc... etc.

So while I'm sure you don't... and there are certainly plenty of other Americans who want to make the government smaller, I believe you are badly outnumbered. This might not be the country for you.

Very sad, but there is truth here.

We can cut a LOT of military spending without putting ourselves at risk. We don't need military bases in places like Italy and Germany. We certainly don't need to be in Iraq, and the policies that led us there must come to an end.

We have 700 bases in 130 countries.

Beyond that, there are probably many terrible inefficiencies within our government that need to be resolved.

People are so used to being taxed to death, they don't see the need for change.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No, sales taxes are far more abusive than income taxes. We just need to fix the system we have.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Well cut spending on what? Whether you like it or not Americans actually like big government. Sure they might complain about it and say that we should reduce its size... but actions speak far louder then words. People LIKE social security, they LIKE medicare, they LIKE a huge bloated military, large highway systems, etc... etc.

So while I'm sure you don't... and there are certainly plenty of other Americans who want to make the government smaller, I believe you are badly outnumbered. This might not be the country for you.

I don't think it's that lots of people want or like bigger government... they just want something for nothing. So as long as 50%+ of the population is paying little or no taxes (it's the other guy getting screwed, not me) and receiving the benefits, where is the incentive to demand smaller, less expensive government? It winds up being the opposite. Bigger government means "more for me" in most cases.

I think deficit spending has more to do with it then someone specifically getting 'screwed'. This is particularly true because the upper 50% of the population that is paying all the taxes is by and large the part of the population that votes. If these people were so unhappy about getting screwed something tells me they would do something about it sooner or later.

If I'm not mistaken Barry Goldwater himself (who I would bet Ron Paul greatly admires) put a lot of the blame on deficit spending because he believed that deficits concealed the true cost of government. In that case it really is people getting something for nothing, as the next generation will have to pay for it.

 

[Capitalizt]

I prefer Ron Paul's idea of dropping the IRS and replacing it with nothing.

We need to cut the size and power of government. Any other plan just rearranges the chairs on the Titanic..

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is this a good idea?

If you're rich, it's great. If you are poor, or even middle class, it's a bad idea.

The less one makes, the bigger the percentage of their income tax is spent. And of course, poor who otherwise would not pay any, or very little, income tax would now pay, and quite a bit.

I think this is a horrible idea, and I can't believe people would support this. I like Paul's idea better. Drop the IRS, replace it with nothing, and cut spending back to what it was 10 years ago.

I don't think people really understand how much money we pay in taxes. Of course we have the federal income tax. Then some states have a state income tax, some have a state sales tax, and some dumbasses live in states with both. Property taxes, wheel taxes. Want a six pack of beer? That's taxed. Cigarettes? Taxed enormously. FICA taxes. Social Security taxes. The list seriously doesn't seem to end.

Americans get their paychecks, and see the amount taken out, but often they fail to see the taxes taken out of the rest as they spend it.

Are Americans ready for a national sales tax? The poor, and even the middle class will NOT be happy. I cannot even believe Huckabee is running with this idea.

Removing Federal Income Tax would be a blessing. Not only would people get to actually save that money, but personally, I wouldn't feel like a slave either. Taxing my labor is definitely that IMO.

Now if that could not happen for some reason, I would support the removal of the Federal Income Tax in favor of the "Flat Tax" only if this criteria that I have come up with was used.

The Flat Tax must do a number of things.

1) It must create growth.

2) It must allow people to save money.

3) It must create jobs.

How you ask? I would propose a multi-layered Flat Tax approach. The criteria being:

1) Imports (Higher Flat Tax Bracket) 15%

2) semi-imports (Half of the Import Flat Tax Bracket) 10%

3) Domestic (Half of the semi-import Flat Tax Bracket) 5%

Imports being totally manufactured and assembled in foreign countries. Semi-imports are manufactured in foreign countries but are assembled in America. Domestic is Manufactured and assembled in America.

Then separate into categories

1) Luxury (Highest Flat Tax Bracket) 10%

2) Normal (Low Flat Tax Bracket) 5%

3) Need (Lowest Flat Tax Bracket) 1%

Luxury would include things like a Mercedes or a BMW, jets etc. Normal would include toaster ovens, microwaves, phones, tables etc. Need being food, medical supplies and medications etc.

An example I can give would be TV's. If you buy a Sony TV (imported) over say a Visio (imported) you would not only pay the Imported Flat Tax Bracket but also the Luxury Flat Tax Bracket. Buy the Visio? You pay the Imported and the normal tax bracket. Now say there was an American manufactured and assembled TV. You would pay only the Domestic Tax.

For Example:

An American manufactured and assembled TV costs $300 + 5%(domestic Tax) = $315

A Visio TV Imported costs $300 + 15%(Import tax) + 5% (Normal Tax) = $360

Or Cars , separated into categories and designated normal tax or luxury based on price in their respective categories:
(guesstimation just for idea purposes)

Say trucks range in price from $20,000 to $40,000. From 30k to 40k this would be the luxury bracket and those below would be normal tax bracket.

Now which would you buy? Easy choice. American made products would be in higher demand which will create jobs. It may even entice companies to come to America to manufacture and assemble their products.

Now this couldn't happen all at once, there would have to be a changeover time. Maybe 5yrs or so. This is to get American manufacturing up to speed to meet the need the American consumers want.

I'm open to critique. Or you could just call me crazy and be done with it

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
We need to cut spending, drastically. Our government spends WAY too much money. Much of it wastefully.

Well cut spending on what? Whether you like it or not Americans actually like big government. Sure they might complain about it and say that we should reduce its size... but actions speak far louder then words. People LIKE social security, they LIKE medicare, they LIKE a huge bloated military, large highway systems, etc... etc.

So while I'm sure you don't... and there are certainly plenty of other Americans who want to make the government smaller, I believe you are badly outnumbered. This might not be the country for you.

If US citizens really wanted "small governemt" the Republicans and Reagan would have been able to cut it 27 years ago.

This is why I do not think Paul can win the general election. And I have doubts there are enough real "small government" people in the Republican base for him to win the nomination.

Drastic government spending would result in loss of jobs and drastic reduction in comsuption which is a sure-fire recipe for a deep recession if not a depression.

 

[StageLeft]

It's stupid, it won't work and has no chance of working.

 

[Engineer]

Double taxation on your savings accounts and Roth IRA's / 401k's. No thanks.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I think we should just keep the bloated, overly complicated, Rube Goldbergian system we have now. It's worked great so far. :roll:

A sales tax can work. The fair tax guys talked about issuing everyone a "pre-bate" every month that would effectively offset the sales tax on basic needs such as food, clothes and other staples. I'm not advocating the fair tax here, but there are ways to make a sales tax work.

It couldn't suck any more than our current system.

No, it can't work in any way that isn't far worse than what we have now. The rich paying even less, others paying even more.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So how exactly would you say Huck's plan is different from RP2's? (yes, serious question)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
I prefer Ron Paul's idea of dropping the IRS and replacing it with nothing.

We need to cut the size and power of government. Any other plan just rearranges the chairs on the Titanic..

And his plan is to keep the same number of passengers, but shrink the titanic to a sailboat. Paul actually finds a way to make things worse.

It's very simple, but very hard to do:

We need to:

1. Fix the broken political system that allows the super wealthy to dominate the agenda

2. Tax the super wealthy more and others less, when politics allows that to happen

3. Fix our spending priorities to invest in the nation's growth and the people's well-being

4. Yes, cut spending, balance the budget. A workable UN could go a long way to our and others cutting wasteful military spending.

Short-sighted people think we need to protect our nation by more dominance and military - we do need to protect our nation, by less of that and more diplomacy.

Where are things headed now? The US is on the road to China passing our economy, to other nations like India being stronger in science, all we have left is the military.

We don't want to be a successful Rome, who simply rules the world with military might - we want to be a nation that leads the world to liberty and democracy and human rights.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is this a good idea?

If you're rich, it's great. If you are poor, or even middle class, it's a bad idea.

The less one makes, the bigger the percentage of their income tax is spent. And of course, poor who otherwise would not pay any, or very little, income tax would now pay, and quite a bit.

I think this is a horrible idea, and I can't believe people would support this. I like Paul's idea better. Drop the IRS, replace it with nothing, and cut spending back to what it was 10 years ago.

I don't think people really understand how much money we pay in taxes. Of course we have the federal income tax. Then some states have a state income tax, some have a state sales tax, and some dumbasses live in states with both. Property taxes, wheel taxes. Want a six pack of beer? That's taxed. Cigarettes? Taxed enormously. FICA taxes. Social Security taxes. The list seriously doesn't seem to end.

Americans get their paychecks, and see the amount taken out, but often they fail to see the taxes taken out of the rest as they spend it.

Are Americans ready for a national sales tax? The poor, and even the middle class will NOT be happy. I cannot even believe Huckabee is running with this idea.

In our economy, the consumer pays the bill for everything in the end, and people that bring the goods to the economy make some money along the way. That wouldn't change with any other tax scheme.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: bamacre
Is this a good idea?

If you're rich, it's great. If you are poor, or even middle class, it's a bad idea.

The less one makes, the bigger the percentage of their income tax is spent. And of course, poor who otherwise would not pay any, or very little, income tax would now pay, and quite a bit.

I think this is a horrible idea, and I can't believe people would support this. I like Paul's idea better. Drop the IRS, replace it with nothing, and cut spending back to what it was 10 years ago.

I don't think people really understand how much money we pay in taxes. Of course we have the federal income tax. Then some states have a state income tax, some have a state sales tax, and some dumbasses live in states with both. Property taxes, wheel taxes. Want a six pack of beer? That's taxed. Cigarettes? Taxed enormously. FICA taxes. Social Security taxes. The list seriously doesn't seem to end.

Americans get their paychecks, and see the amount taken out, but often they fail to see the taxes taken out of the rest as they spend it.

Are Americans ready for a national sales tax? The poor, and even the middle class will NOT be happy. I cannot even believe Huckabee is running with this idea.

In our economy, the consumer pays the bill for everything in the end, and people that bring the goods to the economy make some money along the way. That wouldn't change with any other tax scheme.

Tax schemes affect the distribution of wealth, depending who pays how much, and they incent certain behaviors. Those things *do* chance with other tax schemes.

The super wealthy are always looking for ways to get more from others for themselves; the sales tax proposal is no exception.

 

[Codewiz]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So how exactly would you say Huck's plan is different from RP2's? (yes, serious question)

Ron Paul wants to cut spending and replace the IRS with nothing......

Huck just wants to replace our current tax system with a consumption tax.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
I prefer Ron Paul's idea of dropping the IRS and replacing it with nothing.

We need to cut the size and power of government. Any other plan just rearranges the chairs on the Titanic..

And his plan is to keep the same number of passengers, but shrink the titanic to a sailboat. Paul actually finds a way to make things worse.

It's very simple, but very hard to do:

We need to:

1. Fix the broken political system that allows the super wealthy to dominate the agenda

2. Tax the super wealthy more and others less, when politics allows that to happen

3. Fix our spending priorities to invest in the nation's growth and the people's well-being

4. Yes, cut spending, balance the budget. A workable UN could go a long way to our and others cutting wasteful military spending.

Short-sighted people think we need to protect our nation by more dominance and military - we do need to protect our nation, by less of that and more diplomacy.

Where are things headed now? The US is on the road to China passing our economy, to other nations like India being stronger in science, all we have left is the military.

We don't want to be a successful Rome, who simply rules the world with military might - we want to be a nation that leads the world to liberty and democracy and human rights.

It's been proven that as you tax the wealthy more, they take themselves and their money to other countries. We're in a bad enough brain\money drain as it is right now. The sooner you stop trying to get your government thug with a gun to play Robin Hood, the better.

 

[1EZduzit]

The GOP is so screwed.... and they did it to themselves.

 

[Jhhnn]

The subject of taxation usuallly brings out the raving on the rightwing, and a great deal of misdirection and contradiction.

The idea that "smaller govt" would be sending out monthly checks to every american is an oxymoron, along with the idea that doing so wouldn't create dependence is truly astounding...

Not the mention that the conceptual framework of such crackpot notions are formulated in the big money thinktanks financed by the truly wealthy, and are designed to benefit them and nobody else...

Progressive federal income taxes and estate taxes are the only mechanisms that force those at the top to pay in nearly the same proportion as the rest of us, and they know it. so they're selling snakeoil, as usual. From Huckabee's website-

"Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly," Huckabee says on his Web site. "But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all -- personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment. . . . Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth."

Bullsh!t, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with wealth, and everything to do with retail sales...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....er&wpisrc=newsletter

 

[piasabird]

The people at the top are paying through the nose already. The problem is that in the past under Clinton when the ultra rich were given things like a luxury tax is that they just start buying things overseas. Retail sales taxes will only hurt the middle class stuck in the USA and the poor.

Another thing is how will that effect the tax free Internet?

You will have to pay the state tax plus a federal tax.

Try adding 25% tax to your gas bill.