tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post4609451756768019860..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: More on the Huckabee HoaxJohn Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-70409034685446252792007-12-11T07:11:00.000-06:002007-12-11T07:11:00.000-06:00O yeah I forgot to mention that my calculation doe...O yeah I forgot to mention that my calculation does include payroll taxes...someone asked about that. Income tax and EITC estimates were done on the IRS's website...payroll taxes have standard percentages, so no challenge there.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17598303049180558695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-5368164071559483072007-12-10T17:53:00.000-06:002007-12-10T17:53:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Omar Cruzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02944147038071391777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-7871951055796115382007-12-10T15:21:00.000-06:002007-12-10T15:21:00.000-06:00I only spent 10 minutes trying to see if there was...I only spent 10 minutes trying to see if there was any face validity to saying this "fair" tax was actually anywhere approaching to be progressive. Yes I assumed all money would be spent on taxable income. Is that reasonable, perhaps not, but I wasn't claiming to be doing a Nobel worthy piece of lit. <BR/>Regardless consumption taxes not progressive, even if 100% of your income is not spent on taxable items. John's point of taxes on government spending are quite interesting as well... do we want our property taxes to go up because of federal taxes? Seems to me that is raising our tax burden some more.<BR/>Like I said in my original post, I'm not a taxation expert, but I don't see how this could be ever been seen as any thing but regressive. I just doesn't pass the stick test (if it smells like BS, it probably is). <BR/>And please Ian or another Fair Tax supporter don't tell me to buy Neal Bootz's book, I cannot fathom supporting that wind bag with the purchase of his book.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17598303049180558695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-2477346819105071922007-12-10T09:34:00.000-06:002007-12-10T09:34:00.000-06:00A good review, first time I opened it today.But ho...A good review, first time I opened it today.<BR/><BR/>But how come you have so many links to neocon sites?<BR/><BR/>A distributistAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-24856355536242896852007-12-09T11:10:00.000-06:002007-12-09T11:10:00.000-06:00Dutchman, by all means, please send me your analys...Dutchman, by all means, please send me your analysis; I should like to read it. It seems to be that the FairTax people are spending the same dollar twice, promising it to workers in the form of higher wages and the consumer in the form of reduced costs. But in fact, you can't reduce the costs unless you reduce the wage. Moreover, they overestimate the "cost of compliance." In truth, every business of any complexity must keep a complex set of books for their own internal control reasons and for public reporting purposes, if they are a publicly owned company. The increment to keep the tax books is not that great. <BR/><BR/>Finally, they are assuming that savings get converted into price reductions, but this is not necessarily true. The Arabs, Hugo Chavez, won't sell us oil any more cheaply because we have a consumption tax. Goods made overseas (a very large part of consumption) will not be affected very much. <BR/><BR/>However, the truth is this: Nobody can say what the effect on prices will be, because there has <B>never</B> been such a massive interference in the free market pricing structure since the Russian Revolution. There is simply no precedent for such massive tinkering with prices, and the effects cannot be known in advance. This much we can know: when govmint decides to interfere with the market on such a massive scale, the results cannot be good.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-8624358437692538832007-12-09T09:11:00.000-06:002007-12-09T09:11:00.000-06:00John, great piece with many good points. As for p...John, great piece with many good points. As for prices, I believe that, on average, prices will rise by 17%, not 30%. Here's why. The magic 22% embedded costs of the income tax system as developed by Dr. Jorgenson back in the mid 1990's, included business costs and employee payroll and income tax withholding. And employee withholding belongs to the employee, not the business owner! Business income,and payroll taxes amounted to only one third of the total 22% embedded costs, or roughly 7.5% Jorgenson didn't include compliance costs, so a reasonable business cost reduction would be 10%. If all of the reduced costs were applied to price reductions, then prices will rise on average by 17%.(1.00 x .9 x 1.3 = 1.17) But, there are many other uses for the cost savings, including business expansion, shareholder payments, increased profit margins, and even employee pay raises. So, a 17% price increase would seem to be the floor with higher price increases likely as you suggest.<BR/><BR/>I also find it useful to talk about both avoidance and evasion. Yes, there will be a lot of illegal evasion. But tax avoidance by buying "used" (tax previously paid) could be a fairly large number. If the net price of a new car goes up 17%, will I still buy a new car every other year? I might instead choose to keep driving the old one and keep the repair shops busy. On a large scale, what would that do to the auto industry???<BR/><BR/>Finally, Mr B. Y. Young needs to do another "back of the envelope" analysis. It looks to me like he overlooked the payroll taxes in his calculations. And he may have also assumed that 100% of gross income was spent on taxable goods and services under the Fairtax. Neither is correct.<BR/> I did a study last year that compared effective tax rates and purchasing power under current law and under the Fairtax. For the family of four he mentioned with incomes under $30,000, effective tax rates are the same or lower under current law. Over $30,000, the Fairtax effective tax rates are lower. I'd be happy to send anyone a copy of the analysis on request. (vanlinda@comcast.net) <BR/><BR/>I'd like to deal with my friend Ian's stuff in a later post. This one is already too long.Dutchman3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04598625693698270641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-72253011226687335822007-12-09T00:03:00.000-06:002007-12-09T00:03:00.000-06:00Increasingly, Mike Huckabee is what leadership loo...Increasingly, Mike Huckabee <I>is</I> what <B><A HREF="http://snipr.com/leaderlook" REL="nofollow">leadership looks like</A></B>. He's an adroit public speaker, and he communicates his message in life-like, cogent terms, with compelling examples like the story he told (at the Ames Straw Poll) of what his then-11-yo daughter entered into the "Comments" section of a Visitors Book after visiting the Yad Vashem holocaust museum: “<B>Why didn't somebody do something?</B>” Very effective.<BR/><BR/>Huckabee is all about calling his listeners to "do something," to awaken them to their own empowerment, and <B>summon them to action in order that "Main Street," and not "Wall Street," will prevail in guarding the values and beliefs upon which the Republic was founded</B>.<BR/><BR/>Huckabee puts his listeners at ease, and reassures them, articulating clear concepts in a natural, easy style (no doubt something well-cultivated as a pastor). He’s not as “mechanically-scripted” as Romney, nor angry or demanding, like a Ron Paul, and his large brown eyes, peering through a humble demeanor, draw a striking contrast to a unconvincing, tired-looking Thompson. <B>One can easily imagine sitting comfortably with Mike over a cup of coffee at the Main Street Cafe</B>. <BR/><BR/>Most importantly, perhaps, Huckabee is <B><A HREF="http://snipr.com/fthuckabeeonirs" REL="nofollow">ONE</A></B> with the FairTax grassroots <B><A HREF="http://snipr.com/becomeamember" REL="nofollow">movement</A></B>. While many - like Romney, and others, who are invested in the current income tax system - seek to <B><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted" REL="nofollow">demagog</A></B> the well-researched FairTax plan, its acceptance in the professional / academic <B><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/econsopenletter" REL="nofollow">community</A></B> continues to grow. Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic <B><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress" REL="nofollow">meltdown</A></B> because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. <BR/><BR/>Romney's recent WEAK response to FairTax questioning on “<B><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/stephanopoulosdebate" REL="nofollow">This Week</A></B> with Geo. Stephanopoulos” drew a sharper contrast between Huckabee and all other presidential front-runners who will not embrace it. Huckabee understands that what's wrong with the income tax can't be fixed with "a tap of the hammer, nor a twist of the screwdriver." <B>That his opponents cling to the destructive Tax Code, the IRS, preserving political power of granting tax favors at continued cost to - and misery of - American families, invigorates his campaign's <I>raison d'etre</I></B>.<BR/><BR/>Of the FairTax, Huckabee <B><A HREF="http://snipr.com/fthuckabeeonirs" REL="nofollow">asserts</A></B> that it's...<BR/><BR/><I>• SIMPLE, easy to understand<BR/>• EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes<BR/>• FAIR, FLAT, and FAMILY FRIENDLY, loophole-free, and everyone pays their share<BR/>• LOW TAX RATE is achieved by broad base with no exclusions<BR/>• PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible<BR/>• UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty<BR/>• VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise<BR/>• PRODUCTIVE, rewards - rather than penalizes - work and productivity</I><BR/><BR/>A detailed benefits analysis of the plan (from The FairTax Book) explains Huckabee's ardent advocacy:<BR/><BR/>For <B><I>individuals</I></B>:<BR/><I>• No more tax on income - make as much as you wish<BR/>• You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions<BR/>• You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"<BR/>• No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)<BR/>• Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices (due to reduced costs; increased competition)<BR/>• 29.9% mark-up yields 23% FairTax portion of prices<BR/>• Over the first year, "market-adjusted" FairTax prices comparable to current <I><B>(Yes, John, I see your point! Revision made!)</B></I><BR/>• Every household receives a monthly check, or "prebate"<BR/>• "Prebate" is "advance tax payback" for monthly consumption to poverty level<BR/>• FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection<BR/>• <B>Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS</B><BR/>• Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry<BR/>• NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals<BR/>• Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax<BR/>• Households have more disposable income to purchase goods<BR/>• Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates</I><BR/><BR/>For <B><I>businesses</I></B>:<BR/><I>• Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax<BR/>• Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"<BR/>• No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls<BR/>• <B>No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices</B><BR/>• Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices<BR/>• Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S<BR/>• <B>No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers</B><BR/>• Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes<BR/>• Global "free (and equitable) trade" becomes possible for <B><A HREF="http://snipurl.com/tradeinequity" REL="nofollow">currently-disadvanted</A></B> U.S. exports<BR/>• U.S. exports increase their share of foreign markets</I><BR/><BR/>For the <B><I>country</I></B>:<BR/><I>• 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax<BR/>• <B>Jobs return to the U.S.</B><BR/>• Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.<BR/>• Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"<BR/>• Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"<BR/>• Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie" increases<BR/>• <B>No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business</B><BR/>• FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow</I><BR/><BR/>Passionately supporting FairTax, Huckabee understands that, if elected President, Congress will have to present the bill for his signature. His call to action goes beyond his candidacy: <I>Main Street will have to <B><A HREF="http://snipr.com/becomeamember" REL="nofollow">demand</A></B> that their legislators deliver the bill</I>.<BR/><BR/><I>(Permission is granted to reproduce, in whole or part. - Ian)</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-25551987357752975982007-12-08T21:01:00.000-06:002007-12-08T21:01:00.000-06:00What do we do to get the message out that this man...<I>What do we do to get the message out that this man might make a good preacher but he's running for the wrong pulpit?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm working on it.<BR/><BR/>When people understand just how easy it will be to cheat in this system, when they think about how much the prices will rise for those who don't cheat, when they think about the ruin this plan will cause, they will run the other way. And when the Republicans realize that this hare-brained scheme will guarantee a Democratic sweep, they'll find another candidate. Not that most of the others are much better. As far as I can tell, there is only one Republican running for the Republican nomination, and he's a long-shot at best.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-91755576348816953662007-12-08T19:39:00.000-06:002007-12-08T19:39:00.000-06:00Huckabee is a dangerous man. Another fundamentalis...Huckabee is a dangerous man. Another fundamentalist is the last thing this country needs. As if the other Republicans aren't bad enough, this may be the worst. What do we do to get the message out that this man might make a good preacher but he's running for the wrong pulpit?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-39150422613445485212007-12-08T11:19:00.000-06:002007-12-08T11:19:00.000-06:00You're being much too generous John, he's not half...You're being much too generous John, he's not half the president Bush is.<BR/><BR/>The Huckster doesn't have a single drop of knowledge let alone experience of foreign leaders or countries. The first thing he'ld try to do is use a joke on a head of state somewhere and we'ld be at war directly because of it.<BR/><BR/>He'ld find a way to manipulate loopholes for amnesty from his recent and complete flip-flop with his "new" illegal immigration plan.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Look, I could go down the long list of this con artist's record but, people have to give a rip about their responsibility with their vote to know this guy is so outrageously wrong it isn't funny.Winghunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09290679068073993411noreply@blogger.com