This is one of the few positions that I can get behind with this guy.


Jacksonville, Florida--Continuing to pledging his support to a broad based consumer tax that would replace the current income tax, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee stopped by a Sunday rally for supporters of the “Fair Tax” in Jacksonville to lend his backing to the organization's cause.

“I’ve said all over American that I’m going to be the president who nails the sign on the Internal Reduction Service,” Huckabee told the crowd of supporters.


LINK

I would if I knew enough about it to share. It's a feel good proposition that doesn't have enough support to be implemented .IMO.

They put the "Fair" on the tax to make folks think it's fair. They also would have to alter the Sixteenth Amendment. Americans For Fair Taxation are the ones who came up with the subjective term.

Exactly. If there are taxes there are loopholes and the little guy usually get the short end of the stick. There are a lot of concerns with it like tax evasion, cuts in programs due to a lack of funds, and larger deficits to make up for lost revenue, to name a few.

Segep wrote:OK, I feel dumb, but could somebody explain a "Fair Tax" to me? Why don't I ever believe politicians when they use words like that?

try this: LINK


I agree that it is not the whole answer, but anything is a bit better than what we have now.

To be honest I haven't really looked into it but from reading the for it, against it, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before I would support it. Taking the current tax system and throwing it out the window isn't the way to go IMO. I'd favor a reform not quite as bold as this one myself.

Here is the part I'm not sure of:

There would be a 23-percent tax on everything you buy.

All federal taxes would go away -- income tax, the alternative minimum tax, gift taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes -- even Medicare and Social Security premiums would disappear. But you'd still have to pay all of your state and local taxes and property taxes. With a shortfall in money from the government that supports state programs, they will be making up the money somewhere, most likely through state and local tax increases.

Everything will be taxed -- including things like rent and health care.

They also claim that the IRS would be eliminated, but there still has to be an agency to collect and dole out all these funds , as well as monitor compliance. What I see is the same branch of government as the IRS, only under a different name.

Tumbleweed's explanation is my understanding of it as well.

Income tax goes away completely and is replaced with a national sales tax of around 23-25%.

On the surface it sounds good - a big advantage is that we get to keep the money in the bank until we spend it (presumably earing interest).

There has to be more to it though - that I'm not as well versed on. Cuz aspects of it seem bad on both ends of the spectrum:

1. Poor People: Person making only 15k per year will pay around $3k per year in taxes (assuming the lower end of the income scale MUST spend all of this income to live). Currently, under the Bush tax tables, this guy would pay Zero.

2. Rich People: The guy earning his 1 million per year. Opponents argue that he's not spending 1 million per year - so he won't be paying 23% on all of it. If he's banking half of his salary - he's only paying tax on the 500k that he spends.

Opponents argue the rich folks will pay much less taxes - Perhaps there is more to it - capital gains, luxury taxes, etc. There would have to be some mechanism to account for this.

yep there are holes in this taxation as with most of the plans. For me, the simplest would be a 20% income tax on everyone, except those under the poverty line. No deductions, no loopholes, no way to duck it.