|
"utopian schemes that call for results the political system will never deliver impede rather than advance those goals." Maybe we should add reining in pork and ethics reform to the list. |
|
Good job Hugh.
In addition to being unproductive, the insistence on The Perfect Utopian Tax Plan is a childish evasion of responsibility and reality.
To the Utopians: You can't have The Fair Tax. You don't have the power to enact it.
Please join the rest of us in the real world. In the real world, we try to improve things. We work and advocate for improvements, not perfection.
You guys are right about The Fair Tax. It's The Answer. But in the real world, most grown-ups eventually learn that they can't get exactly what they want, and they need to make the best of what they can get.
It's not about being right about everything. It's not about you. It's about all of us accomplishing what we can. |
|
I did read Linder and Boortz's book, and they make a pretty good case for a fair tax. IIRC, they point out that the sixth- and ninth-largest economies in the world (Texas and Florida, if they were independent), are successfully run along these lines, with no income taxes. And of course many of the more dynamic economies of the 15 years in Eastern Europe have exploded based on flat taxes.
I am in some sympathy with the anti-utopians, but I will also point out that unlike many utopian schemes, simplifying the tax code would not be an irreversible choice. If it were the disaster that income tax lovers claim it would be, well, we could always go back to the tried and true 100,000 page tax code. I agree the political will isn’t there for it now, but that can change.
The truth is that there’s enough wealth and income to support even the absurdly high levels of spending we allow ourselves without onerously taxing anyone – if there weren’t so many cheaters. The real problem for the working classes is that we’re sitting ducks. We have SSNs, etc. Those who actually pay taxes really pull double duty by paying for all the various tax evaders also. The beauty of a consumption tax is that everyone is taxed. You don’t need to try to psychically find under-the-table, cash, or illegal income as the IRS has to futilely do. You find it and tax it indirectly when it shows up to be spent. |
|
The Federal government takes money out of my paycheck every month. If I like the idea of a flat tax, what responsibility and reality am I childlishly evading?
Methinks kohath must work for the IRS, or perhaps in the beltway. But what do I know ....I'm childish, powerless and don't live in the real world. |
|
I'll put it this way:
Simplifying the tax code is a heavy rock we're trying to push up a hill.
We're all working hard.
The Fair Tax people are saying: "We're going to wait for someone to invent a hovercraft to float the rock up the hill" as they sit back in the shade, thinking about how much smarter they are than the rest of us. |
|
...and for kohath your accolyte. The way he chides people for not being in his 'real world,' makes a writer like kohath someone you instantly take offense from, for his tone and attitude, if not for anything else.
Hugh, I think you are quite squishy in many ways, and more than just your middle. Your intolerance of people who you consider to not realize what our current crop of politicians are incapable of shows a certain lack of compassion (not the liberal kind). Let's hope the squishyness doesn't migrate up the body. |
|
Mr. Establishment, Blue Blood Republican.
Was Hugh being "Utopian" when he supported the Harriet Myers nomination? She had about as much of chance of becoming a SC justice as the Fair Tax does of being passed. LMAO.
The thing I like about the Fair Tax is illegals can't get around paying their fair share.
BTW, I am all for not having the mortgage and charitable deductions if it means a fair, simplified tax code. |
|
Didn't say it wouldn't be hard work. Didn't even say it could ever be done. Hell, we can't even get the pols to tell us how they are spending our money as my first post implied. To implement the Fair Tax would be to remove money and power from the politicians. I don't need anyone to tell me how difficult of a task that would be. I also don't like being called childish and dillusional for liking an idea
If Fred T. were to put the idea out in front of the public I cannot see how that would be a bad thing. I read somewhere that Huckabee's success in Iowa was due to getting his people together with some of the Fair Tax people. Maybe I read that in my Utopian E-mail alert.
|
|
|
You sure the "Fair Tax" wasn't dreamed-up on a smoky-room by the North American Union (ooga-booga!), to divide and conquer, seting renters against homeowners? Or is it to set the Flying Car people against the Metro-Transit commuters? :-) |
|
|
If this were a tragic myth being acted out in the present, then the reformers would be playing the part of Sysiphus and our tax system would be the boulder. |
|
|
At least have Neal Boortz or Congressman Linder on your program to talk about the Fair Tax. If you have objections to losing your home mortgage and charitable contributions, then have them explain why your fears are ungrounded. |
|
|
We could of course keep the deduction for Hugh and his friends. Every year when they don't file their income taxes, they can continue to deduct their mortgage interest from the taxes they don't file. We could put the forms online for them. |
|
|
Poor Hugh. It seems as though he fallen back into his Harriet Miers B+ for SCOTUS mode. Anyone who dares challenge the greatness of Mitt I was a liberal before I was a conservative Romney gets assailed by Hugh. Hugh should just be honest with everyone and change the name of the site to "HughHewittforMittRomney.com". |
|
|
The home mortgage deduction becomes less important to any taxpayer each year. The Standard Deduction was $10,300.00 for a married couple filing jointly in 2006 and is indexed to inflation which means that it increases every year. At the same time, people who are paying principal and interest on their home mortgage with a fixed rate pay less interst each year than they did the year before. People who are in the lower middle class and bought houses that costs below $150,000 DON'T get any benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction unless they also are substantial givers to charity. Their itemized deductions don't add up to more than the standard deduction so there is no point in itemizing. They just take the Standard Deduction and go on. These people would have NO reason not to support a "Fair Tax", and in fact might form a good base of support for the "Fair Tax". |
|
Homeowners are allowed to deduct the interest they pay on their mortgage from their annual income, so they pay income taxes based on a lower amount.
The Fair Tax ELIMINATES the income tax. Ergo, there's nothing to deduct.
We'd end up with FAR more money in our pockets even without the mortgage interest deduction.
In addition, although some people may give to charities for a tax writeoff, the VAST majority do so to make themselves feel good, or because of religious beliefs, or just because Americans are so damn generous. Charity is not a tax issue.
There's lots of proof out there that we give MORE to charity if we have more in our pockets--something the Fair Tax virtually guarantees. |
|
|
Hugh, everybody has their sacred cows. Yours is the mortgage interest deduction. If everyone is fighting for their pets, the we will get nowhere. this is the same arguement that has caused so much pork barrel spending (YES WE NEED REFORM, BUT DON'T CUT MY PROJECTS!) I've read the book, and the bill. It makes sense, and yes it will cause some pain. But as they say "NO PAIN NO GAIN." |
|
|
I see you've read the book. And this is not a utopian pipe dream. |
|
"...utopian schemes that call for results the political system will never deliver impede rather than advance those goals"
I'm sure glad Reagan didn't have this defeatist attitude when staring into the darkness that was the USSR. |
|
Wow, not a single problem with the fair tax right?
I've got a tax free bridge to sell you. |
|
Wow, not a single problem with the current tax right?
I'm a lobbyist; I've got a tax free deduction to sell your Congressman. |
|
As much as we might like to untie it, we need to face the reality that we never will. The only chance for reforming Income Tax is total abolition. Anything else will result in yet another re-write of the tax code that changes happy to glad and sorry to sad; we might reduce the tax code to hundreds of indecipherable pages instead of thousands of indecipherable pages - that will be progress.
I almost don't care what we replace it with; but Income Tax has got to go. |
|
What, like Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court?
Or maybe RomneyCare?
Hugh, you're curiously skeptical of the Utopian when it's inherently conservative.
Perhaps the political process would support such things if we started electing more conservatives and less squishy Republicans. |
|
|
What has the obvious problems with the present income tax systme have to do with supporting another system that will have many problems also, just different? |
|
|
I'd bet you know next to nothing about the Healthcare plan in Mass. And unless you are some sort of soothsayer, you have no idea what type of SCJ Miers would have been. All of the perpetually outragers will never be satisfied with anything. |
|
|
My problem with the Fair Tax is that it would hit independent entrepreneurs especially hard. Anyone who needs to purchase goods subject to a "consumption tax" in order to create their own product will see an increase in costs of 20% or more. |
|
That doesn't make any sense. Everyone who does anything is subject to some kind of tax. The big question is whether or not you actually see the tax and deal with it directly or not. Right now, you have everything affected by Income Taxes on both individuals and corporations. Everyone is constantly double-taxed and re-taxed on the back end. The system is so insidious that no one can honestly predict what the effects of its removal will be.
Although he isn't honest about it, Hugh's argument against the Fair Tax is the common one; change is scary, so change is bad. |
|
I had an opportunity to ask Hugh about this at his book signing for Paint the Map Red out here in Denver, and the answer he gave was the same. I agree with Hugh on probably about 90% of issues but not this one. I understand where he's coming from, but the thing is how would you deduct mortgage interest and charitable contributions when you don't have to worry about income being taxed?
To my mind, the benefits of going to a consumption tax would far outweigh those two detriments. And without a doubt, Congress uses the current tax code to reward allies and punish opponents, and we need to get rid of this behavior. I'm sure there are other methods besides the FairTax to accomplish this and I would be willing to entertain them, but I need to hear what they are.
I'd be willing, as a start, to end withholding and make people write a check to the government every month. You think people might sit up and take notice if they had to do that? |
|
Hal said: "My problem with the Fair Tax is that it would hit independent entrepreneurs especially hard. Anyone who needs to purchase goods subject to a "consumption tax" in order to create their own product will see an increase in costs of 20% or more."
If you are using them in the making of your product, you would not pay tax on them. Only the end product has the consumption tax on it. |
|
Did you read the book? How about the bill? Your concern is addressed. You as a business man don't pay for raw products. This isn't something that was hatched in some back room. It took ten years of hard work, and millions of dollars (non-taxpayer dollars that is) to get it right.
And remember the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto is "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_manifesto
Read them all. very instructive. |
|
"The Fair Tax is Not Great", by Hugh Hewitt.
Then he could go on another book tour to proclaim that home mortgage deduction is his sacred cow. |
|
You have to recognize that our legislative branch (especially) arrogates to itself the power to influence social and economic behavior for the "common good". Laws, including tax law, are the instruments that they wield. It's like asking a chauffeur to be responsible for the safety of his passengers but to surrender the steering wheel.
It takes lots of turns right and left to make a journey, and similarly, you see lots of tax laws enacted and modified over the years.
For better or worse, that's just the way it is. I don't think you could ever convince a legislator that giving up the tax legislative power would be a good (or even legimate ) thing. |
|
1. Drug lords pay for all purchases: Hummer, etc. Currently a "cash only business", no audit trail, no income tax.
2. The "cash only" black market can't escape paying.
3. Illegal aliens pay for a new bicycle. ALL used vehicles tax is already paid, also no annual property tax.
4. Tax evaders pay. The IRS doesn't go after the high rollers. Rather, they go after fudged "charitable contributions" gets $500 or threaten their home.
5. Small business owner, realize lower costs for goods and services increased by federal/state/local taxes. No taxes the price comes down. If they don't come down...I'll go else where.
6. No tax, the cost of Gas, fuel oil, etc goes down. Local companies charge the market.
7. My money stays in my community. A.I want to support an Art Museum; B.A neighbors in need; C.There's a another 9/11 or Katrina, I'll send money through organizations I know won't squander, lose track of, or pay folks that weren't even there. The American People sent more money "personally" than what the federal gov't gave away.
8. Folks trying to make it receive a % of their food, clothing, fuel oil, etc. costs. Nothing for "Wide screen" HDTV, other "non necessities".
9. I get to keep MY money. No more "earmarks" for a bridge to nowhere, a highway named for a congressman, or a study of "how flees transfer tissues..without human assistance”. The power in Congress is linked to what they transfer to others.
10. And, YES, I read the Fair Tax Book.
|
|
No one can escape paying the tax, even the black market? There is a reason it's called the black market and it doesn't have to do with race.
Guess what? Crooks are still going to be crooks. They might have a week or so of increased expenses, but crooks find a way around laws. That's their nature. Dishonest people are ALWAYS more creative in their attempts to cheat than honest people.
But, let me ask a question. Lets say that my cousin is going to give me a brand new 60" HDTV that they cannot sell where he works, because of certain new laws. The company has written off the loss. If I don't take the tv, it will be thrown out. The unit wasn't sold. I have a new tv, that has no effective value and I did not pay for. How much is the fair tax?
Honestly, I don't see politicians giving up their power to enact the fair tax. They will find a way to keep their power through the favors they can grant.
How long until the courts rule that because my city or state collects more tax, things need to be fair and my sales tax has to go to a place that collects less tax? (They already do that with schools where I live.)
|
|
makes my favorite argument for everything: Nope, this is the way we've always done it and that's just the way we're gonna keep doing it. Yup, change is bad and nobody's gonna go along with it.
I like the car analogy though: nodoby's gonna go along with the horseless carriage idea; people like their horses; you'd have to put a hard surface on every road in America; too many new roads would have to be built, who's gonna build them; horseless carriages are too unreliabe, break down lot; they're too expensive, nobody can afford that; nope, nobody's gonna go along with that; you're crazy! |
|
|
we've always had an Income Tax in this country, its in the Constitution! |
|
It will never pass.
I don't need to read a book to know you will NEVER convince enough people it is in their best interests and "fair" for them to pay an extra 6 grand for their mid-priced car and an extra buck and a half for milk every time they go to the grocery store. It just won't happen, and if you truely believe it will you are out of touch with reality.
If you want to argue it is the "best" tax system in a hypothetical world where voters will actually accept it, fine.
But if we actually want to improve things in the real world we need a better way to tax that can actually be implemented. |
|
Hi abugbabe, thanks for asking:
Comment: “No one can escape paying the tax, even the black market?
Ans: The Black market doesn’t pay tax on income. Of course they pay a sales tax, but much below the 23% levied by the Fair Tax
Comment: Guess what? Crooks are still going to be crooks.
Ans: and Congressmen will be crooks as long as they can redistribute our money.
Comment: How much is the fair tax?
Ans: There’s no tax, because the TV was already paid for at “point of purchase”. What happens to it, or anything that’s “used” is a cash deal…or in your case Free!
Comment: I don't see politicians giving up their power to enact the fair tax.
Ans: As long as Congress can give away your money to others who pay no taxes, they stay in power. The Fair Tax will not fix that, but it will give use more control over what WE decide what we want…to see, to buy, to support. They can’t spend more than they get.
Comment: How long until the courts rule that because my city or state collects more tax, things need to be fair and my sales tax has to go to a place that collects less tax?
Ans: That’s part of the problem, the courts’ ruling from the bench, rather than following the constitution. Everything takes time, a return to states’ rights and constitutional courts.
If we are stymied by the “what if’s” we will never change a failed system.
|
|
"You as a business man don't pay for raw products."
There are two terms in this sentence that need definitions. Who gets to define them? When are they defined? How does one get reimbursed, if at all? The "simple" solutions espoused by Fair Tax advoctaes are actually a lot more complex than they think. |
|
1st. I am not a Fair Tax shill! I'm a vet and a grandfather. I want a better world for you and for them.
2nd. The Founding Fathers were...thinkers! They studied the best and the worst governments history had to offer and then, wrote the Constitution. It recognized limited government and it provided for no taxation, without agreement of the governed; among other important procedures and rights.
Read the Fair Tax Book (Barnes&Noble has soft chairs if you don't want to buy it)about the genesis of OUR tax system and how it came about. The US didn't have a tax until the early 1900's.
As a teacher I challenge my students to "research, research, research" then make an informed decision.
|
|
A question: When you do finally set a price for your product...do you set what you consider a "fair" price, or a price that passes on to your custom a price that includes your costs?
With the Fair Tax, all the embedded taxes are removed. Thus your costs for materials go down. If a supplier decides to reap a windfall by continuing to charge the before "fair tax" price, I hope you'll find another supplier. |
|
Let's start by getting rid of "tax brackets"...
Everyone pays. No more tax refunds just because you have more children than you can afford on your salary.
No more free services for illegal aliens. Or legal ones. They're supposed to be sponsored. Let their sponsor pay if the alien can't.
I'm all for fair. But the dhimmicrats are all for burdening hones tax-payers until the system collapses... |
|
Go back up and read my previous post. The one that states:
And remember the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto is "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_manifesto
Read them all. very instructive.
Yes there is an amendment to the Constitution. The 16th amendment. Then do a little research how we wound up with this travesty. |
|
|
|
I forgot that this was my sock puppet computer,...
SonnyJim is the smartest commenter at this site! Everyone should just agree with SonnyJim because he is the best, brightest, most wonderful commenter here!
and in case you're wondering, I'm not SonnyJim and this isn't my AKA.
So there. |
|
|
|
in my opinion,the most sensible proposal I have seem. The question "Do you support abolishing the income tax, including the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable deduction, and substituting a 23% sales tax in its place?" makes it very plain that you have NOT read the book and have absolutly no clue as to the concept proposed therein.
Shame on you Hugh, I thought you were better than to judge a book only by it's cover!
|
|
Hugh,
I would happily see my mortgage deduction go away if it meant eliminating the sprawling monster that is the current income tax code. Think of the amount of wasted resources spent each year by individuals and corporations on accounting for payroll deductions for income taxes, diverting money to inefficient areas for tax shelters, preparing tax returns, and defending against the IRS... not to mention the evil it encourages our lawmakers to write into legislation in the form of social engineering.
|
|
Hugh goes off half cocked and ignorant. Read the book Hugh and then come on here and tell us this is not a better tax system than what we have now and would not benefit this nation greatly. Oh I see, can't give credit to a competitor, Boortz!!! but your record of Meirs, Ohio State and your flip flop on immigration ought to hold up to any challange !!!
READ THE BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dirL |
|
Is it not possible to eliminate the income tax and maintain some sort of 'refund' system for mortgage and charitable deductions? Under the Fair Tax plan every citizen gets a certain refund level each month/year anyway. So let the IRS (in its dying act?) draw up a form for Americans to fill out and send in to receive refunds/deductions based on mortgage payments and charitable donations.
The government will still be taking in outrageous sums of cash with a consumption tax, and homeowners will be able to reduce their tax burden by getting a greater refund.
Is there any reason why that's not possible? |
|
|
...there should be some way to reduce the 23% tax burden on particularly large purchases. However, a number of countries do charge from 50-100% tax on new cars (well, formally it's "imported cars"...but in countries with no domestic manufacturer it's all cars) and there doesn't seem to be a fundamental problem with auto buying there. Citizens get used to the higher prices (and their own higher income) and plan accordingly. |
|
The video of Fred and the Fair Taxers is too funny--"huh, yah, absolutely, i'm for fair taxes."
If another 501c 3or4 or whatever like Fair Tax wants credibility, they need to provide better analysis. It is entirely unconvincing. Their website is barren of easily found white papers, facts, and substance. It's a big campaign, a political machine, little else.
Bloggers have previously found misrepresentations of various scholars. The Fair Tax is near impossible to take serious.
|
|
... for this "Fair Tax" plan. The video shows him walking way and not really paying close attention to what the guy was yelling. If you want to take a half listened to and breezily responded answer as some sort of complete, sober and thought out support by Thompson, you are dreaming!
Ever half listened to your wife and said "Yes, dear, whatever." Well THAT is how Thompson responded.
The "Fair Tax" people are being disingenuous just to make news. |
|
While it may have been just a toss away comment, if you read the letter that is linked (to the Fair Tax organization) you'll see that Senator Thompson believes that Congress shouldn't "nibble around the edges" and should take on real, substantive tax reform. If a bill of the scope of the Fair Tax proposal gets to the President's desk, then that level of commitment must have been undertaken, thus "Yeah, absolutely".
That's no flip flop no matter how hard you try to spin it.
Mr. Hewitt, you disappoint me with your willingness to bash Thompson.
This was a drive by at best, and you should be above that. |
|