Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
We Need Ron Paul To Defeat "Tax Hike Mike" Huckabee In the aftermath of the Iowa caucuses, more information is coming out about the winner on the Republican side, Mike Huckabee. The news is not good.by Walt Thiessen
(Libertarian)
Saturday, January 5, 2008
One of the things that happens when a new frontrunner emerges in a campaign is that we learn more about him. This is already happening with Gov. Mick Huckabee of Arkansas, and the news is definitely not good. Take a look at this YouTube video of Gov. Huckabee speaking in 2003, presumably before the state legislature in Arkansas, probably a "State of the State" message, and you'll see why I've decided to call him Tax Hike Mike from now on.
Tax Hike Mike is shown on camera favoring all of the following tax hikes:
Higher income taxes
Higher sales taxes
Higher gas taxes
Higher grocery taxes
Higher tobacco taxes
Higher beer taxes
Internet taxes
Higher nursing home bed taxes
Tax Hike Mike indeed!
Huckabee Deceives The Public About His FairTax Proposal
The video blows the covers off a really bad candidate for president. I dug a little deeper into Tax Hike Mike's views on taxes. Of course, most Ron Paul supporters now know that Huckabee also supports the misnamed "FairTax." In fact, he is playing very fast-and-loose with a major flaw in the FairTax logic, the logic of a "tax-inclusive" tax. This is the supremely deceptive idea that even though all other sales taxes are "tax-exclusive," the FairTax proposal calls itself a "tax-inclusive" tax.
Interviewer: This would be a sales tax of 23% on almost every good and service you buy or anyone buys. But a bipartisan panel named by President Bush say to raise enough money, the rate would have to be 34%.
Tax Hike Mike: They didn't really study the FairTax. They simply studied a type of consumption tax, not the actual proposal that was designed by some of the leading economists in this country. It is a rate of 23%. It's not 30% or 34%, as some of the critics complain.
So how exactly does a tax-inclusive sales tax get applied in the store? The FairTax rate is supposedly 23%. So let's say the FairTax is enacted and goes into effect today. You go to your local convenience store and pick up a candy bar that's marked as being sold for $1. To make this as simple as possible, let's assume you are in a state that has no state sales tax, so the only tax you're going to pay is the FairTax. How much will you pay for that candy bar?
Well, anyone who has ever figured out the sales tax on a purchase knows that answer, right? It's 23% of $1, which is 23 cents. Add that to your $1 purchase price, and the total amount due is $1.23, right? Well, imagine your surprise when the clerk rings it up for $1.30. You protest, "Hey, that's not right. It's supposed to be a 23% tax, not a 30% tax. Tax Hike Mike said so!" The clerk calls over the store manager who replies, "No, the 23% tax rate is a tax inclusive rate. In other words, it's the effective tax rate when you include the tax in the final purchase price and then take that total and divide it into the amount of tax itself."
Meanwhile, your mind is boggled by all this "tax inclusive" BS, and you start getting mad. You accuse the store manager of trying to rip you off, but it does no good. He ends up calling the IRS' replacement, the new bureaucracy which monitors and collects the FairTax sales tax revenues from merchants. A FairTax bureaucrat gets on the phone and confirms that the price you are being charged is correct. By this time, you're going ballistic.
So how do you get a 23% tax from a 30% sales tax? Get ready to hide from your old math teacher so we can set up this math problem. You take the final price you're being asked to pay for the candy bar ($1.30) and divide 30 cents (the amount of the tax for this purchase in dollars and cents) into that figure. 0.30 divided by 1.30 equals (drum roll please) 23%!!! That's what they mean by the FairTax being "tax-inclusive." The dollar value of the tax itself is included in the base against which you apply the 23% rate. What baloney that is! No other sales tax calculates the amount of tax you pay that way.
The FairTax is Fraudulent
Frankly, I don't see why more people aren't calling the FairTax an act of deliberate fraud, because that's what it is. How can I say that? Simple. I looked up definitions of the word "fraud" on Google. According to what Google found, Wikipedia says, "In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain." Well, let's see, Tax Hike Mike is using this deception to try to help him win the presidency. I'd say that qualifies as "personal gain," wouldn't you? And the Utah courts web page says fraud is, "an intentional perversion of truth; deceitful practice or device resorted to with intent to deprive another of property or other right." Yup, I'd say that the FairTax definitely fits that definition.
So why hasn't Tax Hike Mike been arrested yet?
I'm sure this is enough for FairTaxers to start jumping down my throat (as they always do) about "how you haven't studied the FairTax closely enough" and about "how you don't know what you're talking about." Yet, the funny thing is, I've never had one of the FairTax advocates deny that the above math is correct. I even ran it by Genie Hays of FairTax.org in May 2006 via email, using the exact same scenario I described above. At first, she kept dancing around the issue, but I finally got an email confirmation from her where she said, "Oh! He [the merchant] must charge a 23% inclusive – 29.9% exclusive tax." I kept the email as a permanent record of the exchange. Of course, the 29.9% figure rounds up to ....(drumroll again please)....30%.
Ron Paul Has The Answer
I remember seeing an interview of Paul where he was asked about the FairTax. He said he didn't really favor it. He favors getting rid of the IRS and replacing it with nothing. He agreed that the FairTax was marginally better than the current income tax system, but he did not endorse the FairTax. But Paul is much more eloquent than even this. In an article he wrote for lewrockwell.com in 2006, Paul says:
"Many conservatives have touted the Fair Tax proposal as an issue in the upcoming election. A pure consumption tax like the Fair Tax would be better than the current system only if we truly did away with the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. Otherwise, we could end up with both the income tax and a national sales tax. A consumption tax also provides more transparency and less complexity. But the real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that the federal government needs $2.7 trillion from us – and more each year – the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage."
Ah yes. Spending! This is the issue that Tax Hike Mike doesn't really like to address very much. He doesn't bother to talk about how he'll go about cutting Federal spending. He thinks that all he has to do is to talk about the FairTax.What's worse is that in 2000 he came out against a national sales tax. In fact, he has quite a history of flip-flopping on taxes. According to the On The Issues website, he currently supports a flat tax to keep up with globalization. He brags that he raised taxes 5 times as governor but cut taxes 94 times. Going back to 1992 he pledged "no tax increase under any circumstances." He also said in January 2007:
"I wouldn't propose any new taxes. I wouldn't support any. But if we're in a situation where we are in a different level of war, where there is no other option, I think that it's a very dangerous position to make pledges that are outside the most important pledge you make, and that is the oath you take to uphold the Constitution and protect the people of the United States"
The ultimate in flip-flop. Clearly, the idea of cutting other spending in order to finance a war is outside of Tax Hike Mike's way of thinking.
This man is dangerous. It's becoming essential that Ron Paul defeat Tax Hike Mike for the Republican nomination. Paul is the only candidate who understands that in order to cut taxes you also have to cut spending, and Paul is simultaneously willing to support doing both. That's the way a responsible candidate for president behaves. Tax Hike Mike could take lessons from Dr. Ron Paul.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 66 thumbs so far
2008 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, January 5, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, January 5, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Huckabee simply can't be trusted and yet he got the votes. wtf? Do people not research his past and just vote for who their preacher tells them to vote for?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-01-05 08:04:09
Actually, the term "Tax Hike Mike" was given to me by my friend, Steven from our local Ron Paul Meetup group. He deserves the kudos on that one. He's also the one who passed the YouTube video along to me. He got the name from http://taxhikemike.org/.
Good article with a well thought out contrast presented. Thank you.
I am horrified by Huckabee's "win" (I keep telling myself that it is just one state...sigh). Mike is a guy that can make you like him even while he is simultaneously picking your pocket with one hand and *figuratively* stabbing you in the back with the other.
He is all personality and very little substance until it comes to Mike himself-he will fight bitterly for anything he feels he "deserves". And he feels he deserves a lot. He will sue to get what he wants as he did with the ethics committee.
I am really looking forward to the day when doctors and lawyers no longer pay any taxes because we will pay taxes for them whenever we use their services. Professional people will get wealthier and the rest of us will slide further downhill. Yay, FairTax!
The FairTax will turn every single business owner into a Federal tax collector. Yeah, I know that they already collect state and local taxes, but those go toward our own states revenues and upkeep. There is something slimy-feeling about collecting for big-spending war mongers. I would prefer the IRS remain as its own extortionist and leave small business owners out of the equation. And what happens when an invoice goes unpaid (it happens)? Will the business owner then be liable for the FairTax? Businesses will stagger under the weight of having to deal with all these news rules and formulas. I am sure that there will be a need for new software to deal with it.
It doesn't matter what Mike says. If he should assume a position of power he will study the situation and do what benefits Mike and the state. He will always find a "need" for ever increasing amounts of money and he will make his flock tithe as much as possible. He is the king of self-excusers and saying that someone else made him do it. He did not cut spending in Arkansas, he bloated the government with more employees and "services". Check his record in Arkansas and expect more of the same ahould he go to Washington.
I don't really want to be "serviced". I just want to be left alone.
This is going to be a difficult math lesson for Walt. Let's use the candy bar example. $1.00 purchase is FINAL. Why? the 23% is included already in the price. How? The store will take the 77 cents and give the gov't 23 cents. That's what inclusive means Walt. No additional costs over the dollar. How can the candy company still sell for 1 dollar after a 23% inclusive tax? Easy, the corporate tax of about 22 cents was taken out by the fairtax plan. The substitution with the 23% sales tax kept the candy price the same. Now though, you can buy the same-priced candy with your gross paycheck and illegals, criminals, rich, and tourists, as well as good citizens, will be paying 23% like you! Please remember, you are paying a 22% corporate tax NOW, PRESENTLY in that candy bar, the fairtax will kill that tax for the company, so they can sell more candy bars, make more jobs, and give more people quality lives. Also, the store will receive a 0.25% per dollar collection check from the gov't to collect the 23% sales tax, so the store has an incentive to sell as many candy bars as possible. Class over for now, my fingers are tired.
It is imperative people study yet many simply do not. One of my members at Hear My Thunder lives in AR. He calls him the Huckster and his two main concerns are the love of tax hikes, as this article clearly shows (thanks), and his love for illegal aliens. He says he knows no one personally that wants to see him win after dealing with him as their gov...sounds familiar, ala Clinton.
The major problem I see with the Huckster is his oration ability, fine-tuned from years from the pulpit and politics. In listening to him give his IA victory speech my wife and I were amazed how we even 'wanted' to like him based on that. I wish Dr. Paul was as eloquent in speaking as HuckBamaEd but our candidate is a doctor, and a dag-nab great doc at that. He has the cure, the medicine we all need to swallow. If anyone wants to really grasp he intelligence and insights of Dr. Paul watch the two-part video when he sat down with Bill Moyer on PBS yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceoCx_wTDUg
There are two challenges; many people don't study but instead vote with their ear rather than brain and far too many people like the cradle to grave care the leading Dems (and many RINOs) offer them. They don't want liberty, they want their due.
Hmmm...column time, thanks Walt for a sound presentation!
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-01-05 09:56:04
Commenter mark m typifies so many FairTax advocates. He plays around with the truth until it's so distorted that no one can see what's left of it. Mark, I got my answer directly from FairTax.org, and it's the correct one. You'll notice that I specified that the purchase was made the day that the tax took effect. There was no time for the merchant to change the pricing labels on the candy bars. They had been priced at $1 the day before the FairTax took effect, and the same price remained on them the next day.
If retailers truly end up paying the FairTax out of their own pockets without raising prices, you can bet they'll go out of business very quickly. This is one of the more insidious sides of the FairTax. Prices will definitely go up for the reason you give, but FairTaxers pretend that they won't go up.
Nevertheless, you still haven't given me a math lesson. You merely avoided my scenario by twisting it into a new, different scenario. That's dishonest.
Here is a difficult matth lesson for Mark M. We will also use the candy bar example. $1.00 is final? Nope, $0.78 is FINAL. Why you ask?
Well the Government has stopped trying to be an empire, has stopped funding countries around the world, has handed powers and responsibilities back to the states. With all of this money saved ($1.114 trillion according to the 2008 budget), the national debt (which we pay over $400 billion a year in interest for) is paid off. The Government is now at spending levels that there is no need for an individual or corporate income tax, so Americans can spend or save more of what they earn and corporations can reinvest more and charge lower prices.
So, using your numbers, the 22% corporate tax you speak of (link please? I provided mine.) is taken out because it is no longer being charged AND there is no 34% sales tax because there is no need for that either.
(Above example does no take in to consideration possible state sales tax)
Now Americans can save more money or spend it (which would generate more sales tax for state and local governments), whatever they decide to do, it is THEIR choice.
NOW, class is over. Run home to your daddy TaxHikeMike!
You know, I was trying to figure out this 22% corporate tax argument that all of the FairTaxers use, but it just simply does not add up.
According to the 2008 US Budget, corporate income taxes total $314 billion and individual income taxes total $1.246 Trillion. I simply do not understand how eliminating $314 billion equates to a break even in prices under the Fair Tax. If that $314 billion is no longer being collected from the corporations, does that not mean that the individuals in fact have to pick up that tab? The Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral so that $1.560 Trillion has to come from somewhere.
I think this is what Fair Taxers miss. Unless the Government spends WAY less (which will not happen under anyone but Ron Paul) we will all be paying the same taxes, just a different method of doing so.
The retired crowd, which includes me, look at the flat tax and the fact that taxes have been already paid on our earned income and we would be getting slammed for an additional 30% plus state sales tax. Not a very good idea when you have to know the old goats do go out and vote
1st, there will be a 6-month integration period for this "day after fairtax crisis" you speak of. problem solved.
2nd, simple math (again):
1.00-22% current corp. tax= 78 cents
78 cents + 23% fairtax = 1.01
3rd, only 60% of americans pay income tax (small base).
>90% of "people in america" consume new, purchased goods like food, water, movies, etc. (large base).
So, more people buying same-priced goods, which is MORE revenue. Also, a $200/person prebate (for all) to offset exemptions now offered, and often abused, like Evian, which is not taxed because "it's necessary water"... yeah right.
And 4th, here are a few fairtax supporters (maybe you've heard of them), just google their name and "consumption tax":
Fed chair Alan Greenspan
Nobel economist Vernon L. Smith
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich
Billionaire businessman/analyst T. Boone Pickens
>70 current House reps (see fairtax.org)
>80 U.S. economists (see fairtax.org)
Studies from Rice U., Boston U., Harvard, and MIT, not to mention over 20 million dollars invested in H.R 25 research (fairtax.org)
"the fairtax will kill that tax for the company, so they can sell more candy bars, make more jobs, and give more people quality lives. "
WRONG! The companies can currently become obscenely rich with their existing manufacturing line (materials +production+labor+distribution=makes money). Anytime you spend less "time" or "money" on production, labor, distribution, you make more money as a result. This is the cornerstone principle of all modern production: "The product is money, the only motivation to improve any product or service is to MAKE MORE MONEY by virtue of our production process".
What I am trying to say here, is that if the income tax is replaced by a "consumption tax" (and companies subsequently make more money) they are not going to spend it on production capacity or employees!!! The workers are making the product for chump-change (I once asked my dad to tell me how a CEO making 40mil+ a year is functionally any different than a "slave owner" of old, when the majority of their employees are earning under $20 an hour...he just looked at me like I had destroyed his image of modern society.) with their existing production model. Seeing as the end price doesn't change, the demand for products won't change either. If the demand doesn't increase, there is no reason to enhance supply. So in the end, it just means the CEO can add a digit or two to their expected salary!
"According to the 2008 US Budget, corporate income taxes total $314 billion and individual income taxes total $1.246 Trillion. I simply do not understand how eliminating $314 billion equates to a break even in prices under the Fair Tax. If that $314 billion is no longer being collected from the corporations, does that not mean that the individuals in fact have to pick up that tab? The Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral so that $1.560 Trillion has to come from somewhere."
Good question. The answer lies in the fact that it's not the corporations who actually pay the corporate taxes, it's the end consumer. The tax is included in the price of the goods and services that corporations offer. We consumers provide the funding for the corporate tax in every purchase we make. So we are already paying for that tax.
Competition being what it is, it stands to reason that if corporations were not burdened with tax they could sell their products at cheaper prices. In the candy bar example (disregarding the silly criteria that the purchase can only happen on the first day of the new system) there is a myriad of business activities that go into getting a candy bar to a store shelf. Farming, manufacturing, printing, shipping, advertising, wholesale, retail, legal, accounting, and on and on.
Without the tax burden, all of the these businesses will be able to charge cheaper prices. This will bring the cost of the producing and selling the the candy bar down. Therefore the price of the candy bar before tax will be much less than it is now. Then the tax is added, bringing the price back up to where it is now.
Naysayers railing against the FairTax become, ipso facto, defenders of the INCOME TAX system. Prof. Larry Kotlikoff believes that the current tax system IS bringing the country to nothing less than an "economic meltdown" by virtue of the invisibility of actual taxes paid. If Americans do not understand the true cost of their government, they're unlikely to hold Congress accountable - thus the enabling mechanism to continued profligate spending.
Even with the foregoing notwithstanding, do FairTax naysayers really believe:
• Workers love having their pay confiscated, hourly, through gov't withholding and don't mind getting their money back by involuntary servitude - to the tune of 50 hours/year (on average) - preparing an annual tax return?
• That certifying the number of persons in your family (annually, and, ancillarily, upon change in household) is an abrogation of our freedom - more intrusive and complex than filing a tax return every year subject to threats and intimidation by theIRS.
• It's better to have theIRS fishing through citizens' income transactions (complete with audits, interest, penalties, and threats against individuals, families, businesses as well as confiscation of their homes, property, and bank accounts) rather than - Gawd forbid - issuing a gov't check to an individual (while pretending that Social Security payments disbursement logistics really can't work for "prebates")?
• That an monthly advance tax rebate is the same thing as "being on the dole" ? (Only lobbyists, special interests, and business deserve "handouts" ? - the politician gets a payoff from a lobbyist, the lobbyist gets a payoff from its client, and the citizen gets higher taxes and/or prices that pay for it all.)
• "Hidden taxes" in higher prices are fine because they're not "taxes," per se? (Hey, forget that families are really paying business's costs for complying with a business income tax code - staff, consultants, submittals, etc.)
• It's far better to have a gargantuan tax collection "service" in Washington, than to have 50 decentralized, smaller, leaner state collection agencies collecting taxes from fewer sources?
• That the work by notable economists (paid tens of millions of $'s by Americans for Fair Taxation) doesn't carry weight because it was paid for by private funds instead of some gov't / quasi-gov't enterprise?
• That FairTax's backing by many economists doesn't carry any weight because (the Brookings') Wm Gale's testimony before the President's Commission on Tax Reform is - somehow - above all that?!
(NOTE: The Commission/Gale made up their own "consumption tax" requirements, as if that constituted a legitimate rebuke of the FairTax plan. Dr. Kotlikoff has requested - but never received - Gale's technical "modus operandi" which would definitively explain just how Gale's conclusions can be reconciled with Kotlikoff's well-documented technical work.
Let us work, together, to end the enslavement of the Tax Code and to restore Liberty to America's working families.
America's working families are paid because the companies they work for sell goods and services. Let's pay for government the way America's families are paid - when something is sold!
Posted By: Jeremy D. Young
Date: 2008-01-06 01:55:40
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and have been a Fair Tax supporter since I read the Fair Tax book. I think it is rather odd to attack Mike Huckabee based upon his support for the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is proposed as an inclusive tax because a tax of that size would be easier on the consumers as an inclusive tax. (I also work in the Retail Industry, so I understand the logistics in the computer systems when it comes to sales tax) One of the reasons that State, County, and Local sales taxes are calculated at the end of the sale is because they are just that, State, County, and Local taxes. There is a great deal of variation from locality to locality in tax rates, so an exclusive taxation makes more sense. It's just calculated as a separate line item on the receipt.
For the Fair Tax, every single retail location in the country would have the exact same rate of taxation, and therefore it would not be burdensome to build into the computer system the pricing which is inclusive of taxes.
I don't understand why you call the difference between an inclusive taxes and exclusive taxes a "game". It's really just exactly the same thing. When calculated as an inclusive tax, 23% of the purchase price must be reserved to pay to the government. If you have a taxless price tag, and you need to separately collect the tax revenue, then it would be an exclusive tax rate of 30%. Bottom line, the consumer would pay $1.30, and the government would get $0.30. If the consumer paid $1.00, the government would get $0.23. This is not a money game, it's a matter of convenience to the consumer.
I would propose that the exclusive taxation actually plays psychological games with consumers similarly to the withholding of the IRS. Consumers are most likely going to add up their purchases based upon the labels on the shelves when shopping for items. Some are aware enough to consider taxes while shopping, most people are probably not. An inclusive tax allows consumers to know exactly what they will be paying in the end without having to multiply any tax rates on top of the prices on the shelves. These taxes, whether inclusive or exclusive are generally not optional taxes, nor are the prices generally negotiable.
Another significant matter is that the Fair Tax replaces far more taxes than the Income Tax alone. The 23%/30% rate is calculated to be revenue neutral. Anyone that is a Ron Paul supporter says that they want to replace the IRS with nothing, and I like that idea, but we will really have to face the reality that the United States Citizens have become far too used to tax and spend government, and there will very likely need to be a compromise position in the middle. The Fair Tax is beneficial for this purpose because it allows the tax rate to be a single number which everyone can know and monitor. I don't have the exact numbers, but I wouldn't assume that even Ron Paul would suggest that we can get by with eliminating the IRS, the corporate tax system, and all the other things that are proposed to be eliminated by the Fair Tax and replace them all with nothing. The Fair Tax could be a viable middle ground, and a guage as to how well we are shrinking the Federal Government. The unfortunate truth is that the Federal Government has set itself up for hard times ahead, and there are going to be a great deal of revenue requirements just to fulfill the committments that they have already made. Allowing people to get out of Social Security and Medicare after the Congress has "borrowed" against those trust funds will reduce revenue even further, yet there are still more and more retired people that will be receiving benefits.
The job of reducing the size of the Federal Government is also not in the hands of the Executive branch alone, therefore there will be battles and fights involved. One thing that would help hold the Congress accountable to the people would be a requirement that the budget be balanced, and that the tax rate would not be changeable without a vote of the people. If the people were able to hold the purse strings of the Federal Government, the size would be more manageable. We could elect Representatives and Senators that would actually work to lower the size of the budget, and therefore make a tax rate reduction possible.
I have already written more than I intended, so I'll try to summarize. The Fair Tax should not be intermingled with Mike Huckabee. You should appraise the Fair Tax on it's own merits and faults, as well as judging Mike Huckabee on his record when it comes to taxation. The two are not intermingled, and I do not feel that a Ron Paul candidacy is exclusive of the Fair Tax either. Has he spoken directly about the Fair Tax and its faults or merits? I feel that there are quite a few good things to consider about the Fair Tax. It may not be an ideal tax, but please appraise it in the light of being an intermediate taxation method while we fight the smaller government fight.
This article is a shameless try to confuse people. Fair Tax can only mean that national expenditure will now be shared by everybody including rich people and wealthy corporations. For now, only the people with (illegal) taxable income end up paying it to the benefit of altruistic all. In a capitalistic country, everyone must share expense for their consumption. Income Tax = punishment for earning. The same amount of tax collected through other means = taxing corporation for charging price. Nothing "extra" comes out of the pocket of income tax payee. We are paying it already. Remember: Income tax is already tax inclusive, whether or not you noticed it. Why should the real consumer not pay? Mike is not increasing total taxes. He is distributing the liability failry to the people deserving to pay.
My bad. posting the complete comment again....This article, and all similar articles on other papers are a shameless attempt to confuse people. Fair Tax can only mean that national expenditure will now be shared by everybody including rich people and wealthy corporations. PS. Income tax is charged illegally. For now, only the people with taxable income end up paying it to the benefit of altruistic all. In a capitalistic country, everyone must share expense for their consumption. Income Tax = punishment for earning. The same amount of tax collected through other means = taxing corporation for charging price. Nothing "extra" comes out of the pocket of income tax payee. We are paying it already in terms of Income Tax, which we will stop paying now. Now, the consumer will pay the same tax in other terms, but fairly. Remember: Income tax is already tax inclusive, whether or not you noticed it. If paying tax is public responsibility, why should the real consumer not pay? Why should a particular section of society (Income tax payer) pay for all others too? Mike is not increasing total taxes. He is only distributing the liability fairly to the people deserving to pay.
Income tax is charged by government from your pocket to pay for what community deserves (someone else chooses to pay with your money). With FairTax system, the utility pays their taxes from those who choose to consume it. With FairTax System, you have more purchasing power to invest where you choose to invest it. Think: Income tax payee is being illegally charged to pay for those people's consumption of state expenditure, who don't want to pay for it.
A call to call Mike as fraud is more fraudulant. The people calling him fraud should be put in the jail.
Thank you for this well written article! The name "Fair Tax" has scared me and now I get a better feeling for why. A tax branded as "Fair" has had me asking "Fair" for who. When a policy is straight down the line and truly life supportive it will speak for itself without the need to add "Fair" to the name.
Mr Paul has the best chance of anyone out there in the political circus to cope and deal with what really is a disastrous situation at our doorsteps. Both the income tax and so-called fair tax amount to economic sodomy for almost all americans.
The video with the stark-naked truth of the situation and how tight we're going to have to tighten our belts is plainly said in the following video, which includes Mr Paul.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.