Does RP Support Huckabee's Fair Tax?
Submitted by unknownrepublican on Tue, 11/13/2007 - 13:06
Mike Huckabee's Fair Tax plan (which wasn't his idea but has been around for about 10 years) would elminate the IRS and switch America over to a consumption tax. It would eliminate all income taxes and taxes on corporations, investment, and savings, and have a sales tax that the poor would be exempt from and that would apply only to new items. So you wouldn't pay tax on used items. I'm a huge fan of this idea, as it would dramatically simplify our lives, reduce our taxes, expand our economy and make America more competitive on the global stage. I know Ron Paul agrees on some elements of it like eliminating the IRS and the income tax system, but where exactly does he stand on the actual Fair Tax plan?
»
No
NO he doesn't, he favors returning to tariffs and excise taxes and has repeatedly stated so for the past 30 years.
Who would collect it?
Would Paul 'abolish' the IRS, just to rename it? Would that fit in with his previous behavior? If so, would 95% of RP's supporters even be 'here'?
peace brother
THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost
THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost
Does TaxHikeMike..
Support the destruction of the IRS???????
He wants the "FAIR TAX" (fair for who?..the rich)
If so he should be out there saying DOWN WITH THE IRS, like our candidate is....
Or does he want BOTH?
www.votejasonthompson.us
Huckabee likes FairTax -- and every other tax too!
I am not surprised Huck is a fan of the FairTax. I don't think he's ever seen a tax he doesn't like. As you may know, Huck got one of the very few 'F' ratings from the Cato Institute's 2006 Report Card on America's Governors for his tax-and-spend ways:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6724
Then, of course, there is this now classic clip of Huck approving every tax offered up in Arkansas. Classic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLOC4krZI4
Tax Hike Mike!
Huge Big-Gov spend-happy tax-fiend: http://taxhikemike.org/
---Signature---
"We should have a strong president -- strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn’t have." --Ron Paul
Apportionment, apportionment, apportionment
Article 1, Section 9:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herinbefore directed to be taken.
That clause requires that there be no direct (collected from individuals) tax levied by Congress unless apportioned. The 16th Amendment does not nullify this clause--because all law is positive. That means any new or contradictory law must clearly state it what it repeals. If it doesn't clearly state it, it is void for vagueness. For an example of clearly stated nullification or repeal of previous clauses or amendments, read the 21st amendment (ending Prohibition) as it pertains to the 18th. Now read the 16th. See what I mean?
Article 1, Section 9 does not mean that soveriegn States could not levy direct taxes.
A fairer tax would be to have income or other direct taxes collected by each state and then the state legislatures could send a portion they deem is appropriate on to Washington, keeping the rest. Rather than sending it all to Washington and begging for a handout. While we're at it, we might want to repeal the direct election of senators, too.
Think about the competition among states for the lowest rate of taxation. Think about ending pork barrel spending. Think about restoring the balance of power among the three branches of the federal government because the emperor doesn't have a blank check. Think about electing true governors instead of federal managers.
Nice thought, huh?
Absolutely!!!
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Restore the Sovereignty of the states. You're absolutely right, there would be competition among states to keep taxes low, but it would also be balanced by the state actually doing useful things with taxes that benefit all of the people, and they would have the responsibility to make sure that their tax system was fair and not oppressive. I almost go crazy thinking about the incredible boon to our economy and our social well being. When we spend the first 5-7 months of the year working to pay taxes, we have so little left to give our families to raise them right. It doesn't help that the government wants to give free day care to working families, I don't want the government raising my kids!
The Fair Tax is better than than the current income tax, but RP's idea is so much better. I think the Fair Tax is a good wy to illustrate how oppressive and corrupt our current system is, but still leaves too much power in the hands of the politicians.
5% of people make things happen
10% of people watch things happen
85% say "What happened?"
I haven't left a message...
on hucklebee's site asking them if hucklebee supports ron paul's tax position.
I've read the book, and it's flawed.
It's flawed because it rolls sales tax on home and other large-item purchases like cars into loan principal, which makes for compounding interest on the tax, which is profit for the lender.
It also has a flaw in the rebate check plan does not take into account how the people who would get it are actually accounted for.
While the transfer of a tax from income to sales is not a bad idea in principle based on comsumer choice, the flaw is that the sales tax itself as proposed taxes far too many life essentials, more than it exempts.
A better way is what Dr. Paul proposes: eliminate personal income taxes, thus giving a 20-30% immediate and continual pay raise to every working American (not to mention a continual economic stimulus!), and cut federal spending.
If we're stuck with a federal income tax then we ought to improve life essential deductions from AGI to include things like utilities, commuting costs, credit card interest, rent expenses, insurance, all out-of-pocket medical costs, and grocery costs.
we don't need to speculate on this!
RP would vote for the Fair Tax. He has said so himself - go to fairtax dot org and check the presidential scorecard, which contains a link to him answering the question directly.
The FairTax is not perfect, but I would encourage anyone interested to read Boortz' book - it's a quick read and gives a very direct description of the plan. It is a very reasonable way to overhaul the system, and would be a significant step in the right direction for the taxpayer.
Don't be so quick to judge things just because they're cosponsored by someone we don't want as president!
tax
I could be wrong, but I think that another reason that Paul would not endorse the fair tax is that it would hinder the U.S. markets. Think about it, if we were paying 20-30% (this is what Huckabee said it would be) on all purchases, many people would find other markets to find their goods.
Not-so Fair Tax
I can understand him supporting it long enough to get rid of the 16th amendment, however the burden of the tax payments under this plan would fall to middle income Americans. One class of people that can hardly stand to be squeezed further.
Under this "fair tax" plan the poor would pay no tax due to credits. This is what we have now.
Under this plan the rich, who invest and save most of their incomes would pay very little tax as they would be able to hang on to most of their incomes. I am not opposed to the rich keeping their money. Just not under this plan.
Because the majority of the tax burden under this plan would fall to the people who are spending almost all of their income on items to get by. The ones who are using their income (and usually a spouses too) just to go paycheck to paycheck would carry the burden of the tax load.
This plan would also be a huge incentive to slow consumer spending and reduce jobs in sectors of the economy which produce "non-essential" items.
If I am wrong about this, I am open to rebuttal.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson, 1791
Agreed-It's an UNfair Tax
Plus it does nothing to eliminate the federal leviathan.
The IRS may cease to exist, only to be replaced by some other intrusive agency that would have to regulate the administration, collection and enforcement of the Fair Tax. Meet the new boss. Perhaps even worse than the old boss.
As I understand it, the Fair Tax federal sales tax rate is estimated to be close to 24% and collected at the point of sale. Talk about inflation.
Because everyone, rich and poor, would have to pay it at the register, individuals would still be required to have some federal ID number, like an SSN, to file and claim their exemption in order to receive a rebate on the taxes paid.
Overnight, state law violations, like shoplifting, become federal offenses. Black market and private sales become acts of terror.
It might actually raise more revenue, meaning the beast only grows larger and more powerful, rather than starving to death.
Whether you want to believe it or not, under the Constitution, the citizen has more rights to protection against the current IRS and 16th Amendment than under this wacky idea.
This is correct.
It is a further assault on the middle class.
www.votejasonthompson.us
listen to Dr. Paul talk about it in this interview
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulSouthernAvengerIn...
The Plan..
Ron Paul's plan should be:
1). Eliminate the IRS
2.) Implement value added tax (fair tax/sales tax) right away
3.) Balance the budget, cut departments & spending
4.) End US foreign intervention
5.) Pay off our debts
6.) Then lower or eliminate the value added tax
No new Tax needs to be added.
Changing our Foreign policy would save the money missed by the IRS. Dr. Paul said it himself. No new tax needs to be added. Income tax makes up 1/3 of the Federal Budget. If we were to get rid of the income tax, that 2/3 is the same as the entire budget of 2002. The Federal Government gets more than enough money from our taxes minus the IRS. NO need to add a replacement. This is where Huckabee is wrong, and just shows that although he is a very good guy, he doesn't have the understanding of all aspect of this government. That is where Dr. Paul dominates all the republicans, and democrats.
NO! He would not be for this scheme.
Fair tax is an oxymoron....political-speak for "I don't have the courage and or intention to rein in my spending, so I'll make you think that I'll lower your taxes to get your vote."
Ron Paul...April 16, 2006
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html
The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $2.4 trillion in the last Bush budget; the new budget proposes to spend $2.7 trillion. The same unconstitutional agencies are funded, the same unwise programs are perpetuated, but at higher levels than last year. The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress.
But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion – a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.
This man has been extremely philosophically consistent throughout the years. ON EVERYTHING...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/#art2
"If the people ever allow the banks to issue their currency, the banks and corporations which will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." T. Jefferson
Debt, Defense and Welfare --- that's where the money is
<<>>
Yes, the important thing is to encourage thinking. Is tax reform that let Trump/Gates pay zero personally politically feasible? No. But the fact that Health & Human Services, Defense and Interest on the Debt... those three items alone cost $1.7 trillion per year (about 60% of the entire budget) is where the runaway spending is most obvious.
-JP
The first 5 million supporters of Dr. Paul are 'early adopters.' The next 10 million will require a modified approach.
RP does support the Fair Tax
... in that he would vote for it, or (hopefully) sign it into law as President:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_presSco...
Personally, I am a huge fan of the FairTax as a replacement to the current system - so long as it ultimately entails the repeal of the 16th Amendment. Of course, if RP had it his way -- and we hope he soon does -- the income tax would be scrapped and replaced with nothing!
I have heard Ron Paul mention a national sales tax
It would be much prefered to a income tax. However, the most important thing is to cut spending! If we spent the money wisely we could probably get by on half of what we spend now without anyone even noticing! Well...maybe not Haliburton.
Mike
Ron Paul is my HERO!!!
You can catch me on RonPaulRadio.com
Mondays and Wednesdays 10pm EST
Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com
Huckabee begs for new taxes
Did you see this video of Huckabee begging Arkansas for new taxes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLOC4krZI4
Well, I believe this should be de-emphasized
Look, first of all:
1) Spending is under control of Congress.
2) Even cutting out say, 300 billion from the defense budget will still require some form of taxation, since cutting 1000 billion (1 trillion) and saving 300 billion is a further deficit of 700 billion.
3) Even if Dr. Paul is elected, he, as President, will not have the power to abolish the income tax, and given the current Congress, there is NO WAY that this will happen.
This is why I am against Dr. Paul emphasizing elimination of the income tax in his platform. Closing bases, cutting foreign entanglements, even closing or minimizing many government departments - yes, this he can do with minimal legislative input. But Constitutionally, control of raising revenue rests with the Congress. So far, few Congressional members even endorse his candidacy.
The same goes to eventually phasing out Medicare, Medicaid, etc. It ain't gonna happen, at least not during Dr. Paul's first term in office.
So you agree that he is right,
but you think he should not talk about it because it won't happen. Wow. That's the difference between Dr. Paul, and Fred Thompson, Huckabee, Giuliani. He doesn't just say what you want to hear, he just speaks the truth, plain and simple Truth.
But...
in the context of the liberty movement it is proper and essential for him to speak of the direction we must head away from big government, not just to speak to executive powers of course. - JP
The first 5 million supporters of Dr. Paul are 'early adopters.' The next 10 million will require a modified approach.
This is why he needs a speechwriter
I agree with you, but it's a question of emphasis.
When I heard his talk in Philly, What bugged me, was, after talking about spammers, the first thing out of his mouth was - well, "some people have asked me what we want to replace the income tax with - NOTHING!".
woo hoo.
But this should be maybe his 6th point. He should start out with telling people about the state of the country, the money, etc. etc., and what he could do immediately to fix. He won't get to abolishing the income tax until later, so why talk about it as the opening point.
Just tactics. Philosophically 100% behind the idea.
Don't you understand? That's
what is so special about Dr. Paul. They are not rehearsed answers. They are his. He doesn't feel the need to prepare for a debate, he's been saying the same thing for over 20 years. Sound like you are more interested in a Polictian, not a Patriot. Try Fred Thompson, he's a great Actor.
No substitutions!
Huckabee's plan is a load of crapola. He just wants to replace the current tax system with another one. Spending will continue to be out of control. The IRS, or some other beaurocracy will have to administer the whole thing and keep track of who is entitled to the rebate checks. And you can bet that system will be full of corruption. The middle class will be screwed by this because the wealthy spend much less than they earn, while the middle class spend MORE than they earn.
I just want my taxes itemized
How about getting an invoice that spells out where my dollars went? Wouldn't that be an eye-opener.
IMissLiberty
IMissLiberty
Original Intent
Initially, taxes were levied by enumeration of the people. The tax was named for what/how it was being spent.
Income tax, the insidious demon it is, dumps loads of dollars into the greedy little politicians hands. There's no real accountability. The Constitution had to be dramatically altered to allow it, because there's no way the founders would have supported something so easily used against the people.
It was a quick-fix for a problem that didn't exist, and now it haunts us like a demon unleashed.