http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080106/ts_nm/....Wn6pOoB6as0NUE

Huckabee tax plan raises eyebrows in U.S.
By Ed Stoddard
Sun Jan 6, 11:50 AM ET



MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's plan to eliminate all income taxes and replace them with a flat consumption tax has the support of martial arts guru Chuck Norris but few economic analysts.

The former Arkansas governor's victory in the Iowa caucus, which kicked off the presidential nomination process for the November 2008 White House race, will bring his policy proposals under closer scrutiny as the candidates do battle in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.

Much of the focus has been on the social conservatism of Huckabee, an ordained Baptist preacher who has connected solidly with his party's influential evangelical base.

But some of his supporters have been attracted by his populist tax plan, which calls for an end to all income and payroll taxes. It is the key plank of his economic platform.

"Putting the IRS out of business" has been a common refrain in his speeches in both Iowa and New Hampshire and it always draws some of the most enthusiastic applause.

Huckabee says taxing income is a tax on productivity that stifles economic growth and hits the middle class and small businesses the hardest.

"The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax ... All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line ... That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all," says his Web site.

"All our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness," it says.

Analysts see some sleight of hand here.

"To truly equal today's federal revenue take, to be revenue neutral, the flat tax has to be quite high -- usually higher than is advertised up front," said Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp in Cleveland.

UNDERGROUND TRANSACTIONS?

"And the complication that comes with that is it encourages underground economic activity. People will increasingly try to circumvent the tax system by doing transactions under the table," he said.

Analysts also see it as regressive -- as it is the same rate across the board regardless of income -- even if Huckabee's plan does make provisions to exempt the poor.

On Sunday, Huckabee was asked about Bush administration criticism that his plan would reduce taxes for those making less than $30,000 a year or more than $200,000 but raise them for everyone else.

"Of course they don't like the fair tax," he said on Fox News. "These are the guys that are going to go out of business. Thirty-five thousand lobbyists in Washington -- do you think they like the idea that a tax would be so simple that they couldn't really go in there and tinker with the congressmen?"

Given the U.S. government's massive revenue needs, Huckabee's plan is not seen as feasible, although abolishing the Internal Revenue Service appeals to many Americans.

"I think the fair tax is a great idea. It would be great to get rid of income tax ... it really stops people from growing businesses," said Bruce Weinfeld, 41, who went from New York to Londonderry, New Hampshire, to attend a Huckabee rally.

It is a policy proposal that also could resonate in New Hampshire, which has no state income tax and where evangelicals are less numerous than in Iowa.

The speeches that Huckabee has given in New Hampshire since his Thursday Iowa victory have put more emphasis on his tax plan and less on his opposition to abortion and gay rights.

Huckabee's "FairTax" idea caught the attention of action movie actor Chuck Norris, who has been traveling with him in what has been dubbed the "Huck and Chuck" show.

Norris tells crowds that young conservative bloggers sent him e-mails about Huckabee's tax plan, selling him on the man.

Huck's a moron.

check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8tVbH5NfvQ

By the way, Paul said he had nothing against a flat sales tax, as long as it could be implemented fairly (meet the press)...
during the same conversation where he said he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights amendment had he been in office then, and that Lincoln should have bought the slaves and freed them...

have you done your research? or are you and your buddies bodies that will fall to talking points?

'm still waiting for the millions the guy produced to create an ad that shows his lack of racial prejudice.

video

HeySeuss,

I'd appreciated if you would link me to some real dirt on Ron Paul, seriously.
I have spent a fair bit of time reading and listening to RP, but I'm less familiar with the specifics of his critics.
Anyhow, if you've something bookmarked or recall something else, maybe you would pass it on.


Peace.

Just read thru the threads. There's plenty of quack ideas here that would pass for dirt if you don't have any common sense.

And he's also said on Leno that he's for a Flat Tax, real Flat, like Zero.

Do you disagree that buying the slaves and freeing them would have been a better way of ending slavery. It would have saved 600,000 lives. That sounds like a pretty intelligent idea to me.

He didn't like the Civil Rights legislation because of the Fed mandates it forced on the States. He supported full enforcement of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. These Amendments, if enforced, would protect all our rights, no matter our differences.

Why do you still question his support of everyone's rights? Do you actually buy that crap that some blogs would like you to believe?

He believes our rights are inherinently ours, all of ours, not given to us by by some Govt. He believes the Constitution is there to protect us from an overly powerful Govt. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Well, it's only that SkyMax alluded to something I had missed, and I'm certain that those so alarmed by RP as to liken him to Neocons would want me to be informed. I say bring-on the facts about RP and his kaftans and shit.

Somebody ought to have some pictures or somethin'.

RP is about as far from a NeoCon as you get. He is, in fact, one of the few candidates who has actually ACTED against their BS throughout his political career. Even the Dems can't claim that.

Here's the only thing I can think of they would call "dirt". I still find it disturbing that anyone here believes it, but you can read my response in the thread.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/bb/index...showtopic=17879

At no time did I state that Paul was a neo-con.
I did say that he was an extreme right wing republican, different than but just as bad as the Neocons.
That Pauls brand of libertarianism is just as extreme right wing as the neo-cons are.

Keep working on your abilities for linear thought.

Skydude,

You talk too much.

Awwww, sorry.

Get used to it, then get over it.

Maxanne was the reference, I think.

And just for the history lesson.

Paul's ideas are common sense ideas that go back to previous Liberal and Conservative ideals. Things like a Strong Defense, but not Aggressive force or Policing the World. Things like balancing the budget, which has become as popular as paying off your credit cards in this day and age. Things like enforcing the Constitutional Protections of our Civil Rights and Liberties against infringements by the FedGov. Things like following the Constitutional Checks and Balances between Branches and between FedGov and StateGov.

I know you like to mock these as outmoded, but they are as prescient today as they were 50 or 100 years ago.

Jeebus! 23, 190 posts in TWO YEARS?????

Son, you need to get out more!

Indeed I do. But for now you got me.
I'm a fuckin force of nature kid.
Enjoy the show.

Sure! With that much practice you should have some damned thing wired!

wOOt!

OK, now I'm bored.

G'night kid!

Wait!

Just eight more!

Round it off.

if I had the time or inclination to go back through my posts to explain why i think that many of paul's ideas would be good, either decades ago, or a decade from now, given the proper fertilization for the electorate, and factoring in a new generation of citizens who had been taught civics from an early age, i would. But knowing the state of the american education, and what their predispositioned toward, we still need decades of teaching people what their government should be and what a citizen's responsibilities are before we could embrace a doctrine that close to libertarianism. to endorse paul's ideas without proper regard to the populace's addiction to the federal goverment would end up with martial law faster than any neo - con could manufacture a reason for it.

argue this with me... tell me how there wouldn't be riots the second welfare was cancelled, and maybe I'll take some sugar with the grain of salt I swallow paul's positions with.

I have seen your posts. I just disagree. Now is always the time. Nothing is going to get done if we don't start going in the right direction.

Again, he has to work with Congress on his policies. Nothing would happen too fast for the great citizens of this country. In fact, with the state of corruption in Congress, he would be lucky to restrain the overspending and balance the budget. His entire presidency would be an educational experience.

But beyond that, he would probably spend most of the first term reversing the BS of the Bush Admin.

Of course there would be riots if Welfare were cancelled. That is why Paul has never suggested doing such a thing. And he doesn't have the power to either. He may not personally believe they should be there in an ideal FedGov, but he is realistic. He says that if gradual reforms were passed to keep the entitlement programs solvent (because if they are not, it will crash of it's own accord), that no one who is dependent on the system should be kicked out on the street.

If you look at the financial pinch we are in, you realize that if we don't take positive steps now, by 2017 the surplus will be gone and the exponential growth of the deficit begins.
David Walker, GAO, and Conservative, and Liberal groups on 60 Minutes (10 min video)

Define "welfare." AFDC? Social Security for orphans? State public assistance? SCHIP? Medicaid? Public housing?

Jeezdude - you don't listen enough.

You are conflating liberal with libertarian.

Paul's approach to government is no different from Grover Norquist's.

Lay it on me, Max.

I'm ready to learn the truth.

Huck will fund God's Army another way.

Can't teach anyone that doesn't want to learn.
And if you really wanted to learn, no one could prevent you from doing so.


In other words, go forth and investigate for yourself young grasshopper.
The information you say you seek is all public and on the tubes.

It's unrealistic to expect someone else to do your work for you,
and from that you get true education.

Please tell me which of those things traditional Liberals and Conservatives and Paul disagree on. They are all common sense ideas that have been lost on corrupt politicians in both modern parties.

First, you want to rehash all that again?
Or you hoping someone will just give up out of sheer exhaustion and agree with you just to shut you up?
Second, who says the ideas are common sence? Common to you may be very right wing to me.
I personally don't consider much of anything of Libertarian values to be worthy of the words, common sence.
And I certainly don't consider much of any Libertarian values to be anything a progressive would call their own.

Sorry Skydude, but one must post one million times to achieve the rank of Master.

You'll have to Wank harder.

That's the best you can do?
That's what you just absolutely had to say?

At the risk of earning Abell's ire, so much for your valuable insights and contributions!



NEXT!

How much practice does a troll require?

I'll repost, for your convenience:



Do you disagree that these are common sense goals we all have in common as Americans?

You won't take no thanks for an answer will you?
Sorry kid, I know it's the check out line impulse rack, but you can't have any gum!

Troll.

I suspect you'll answer that for us.

Better yet, why don't you tell me what the differences are between Ron Paul and Grover Norquist.

By the way........
(and back on topic)


I live in a state that has no state income tax, and instead has a sales, or consumption tax.
Considering that basics such as Food (real food, gum doesn't count) and medicines are excluded, and the idea is that the more you spend the more you pay, for me the idea works. Kind of like gas tax. If you're poor and you ride the bus all the time, you don't have to worry about that tax. But if you buy a car, or a 3 million dollar yacht, you pay a sales tax on that purchase.

My paycheck also doesn't have any state income tax holes in it. In this way I have some control over how much tax that I pay.

I suppose living in a sales tax state I don't consider it a scary thing, because it's a known entity.
What ever, to me a consumption tax just seems more reasonable than an income tax.
In other words, I notice the big hole in my paycheck, but hardly pay attention to paying it out as a 5% extra on the stuff I buy.

Jesus,

You might want to take a moment to read the rules of the forum.
Top left, "Forum Guidelines"

And you might want to look in the mirror, Mr. America.

That is, if you can spare the time.

I thought you were the truth. And the way, and the life. Are you telling us that was all lies?

They certainly are. And every candidate of both parties supports them 100%.

Iknow you are but what am I,
neener neener.

LOL!

John Edwards will be so proud.

True, it does make me look silly to speak your language.

LMAO!
You're just like a Bushbot, but for Edwards.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!