![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Another hated candidate...
Dec. 24th, 2007 03:02 pmI was just watching Huckabee on CNN (12/24/2007). His plan, in his words, was for a national "fair tax" to replace the federal income tax. He claimed that it would be a 23% tax.
Actually, it was a 30% tax. The reason for the difference? Huckabee -- or his aides -- calculated the rate based on the final value. That is, if the base price was $1, and the tax was $0.30, the percentage of the final bill of $1.30 that was due to this "fair tax" would be 23.08%. Of course, NO ONE who is being honest would report it as a "23% tax". If you pay an 8.25% sales tax -- as I do, in Los Angeles County -- you take the base price and add 8.25%, or $0.0825 on the dollar, rounding fractions up.
This is another reason on the long list of reasons "why I can't stand Huckabee".
Such a system would punish the poor disproportionally (and by "the poor", I mean anyone who earns less than $150k per year, that being the typical high end of the upper middle class family incomes). Oh, he claims that there would be exceptions to the "fair tax" that would allow the poor to purchase essentials (by which he means food, based on his statements).
A great system -- no income tax means that the REAL rich (those making huge amounts of money) can just go to Canada or Mexico and buy whatever they want (or buy it through the Internet and have it shipped to the US) and dodge the "consumption tax" completely. Oh, it might take a bit of effort to avoid the tax, but if you have enough money, what's the problem with spending a little effort to avoid paying ANY tax. The offshore banked money could return (or so Huckabee suggested) and be taxed, but since Cayman Island (and the like) bank accounts are typically for the RICH not for people like you or me, I rather doubt that it would be used locally -- and taxed thereby.
This is a case of the candidate (Huckabee) trying to take advantage of the fact that most people are incapable of doing simple calculations. They will hear "23%" and assume that this means $0.23 on the dollar (as other sales taxes do). The truth of the matter is that it would be a 30% tax ($0.30 on the dollar), and added to local sales taxes would, for some of us, amount to a total of 38.25% tax on all purchases other than food. Sure, I wouldn't have to pay income tax; but it wouldn't be "revenue neutral" in my case -- I pay a good deal less on Federal tax than 30% overall.
I'd still pay FICA, I'd still pay State income tax (11% marginal rate on the top bracket), and I'd end up paying far more of my income in taxes. Of course, the Republicans hate the middle class based on their behaviors of the last 8 years, so it's no great surprise that they would like something like a "fair tax" of 30%.
I say it's spinach and I say to hell with it.
Actually, it was a 30% tax. The reason for the difference? Huckabee -- or his aides -- calculated the rate based on the final value. That is, if the base price was $1, and the tax was $0.30, the percentage of the final bill of $1.30 that was due to this "fair tax" would be 23.08%. Of course, NO ONE who is being honest would report it as a "23% tax". If you pay an 8.25% sales tax -- as I do, in Los Angeles County -- you take the base price and add 8.25%, or $0.0825 on the dollar, rounding fractions up.
This is another reason on the long list of reasons "why I can't stand Huckabee".
Such a system would punish the poor disproportionally (and by "the poor", I mean anyone who earns less than $150k per year, that being the typical high end of the upper middle class family incomes). Oh, he claims that there would be exceptions to the "fair tax" that would allow the poor to purchase essentials (by which he means food, based on his statements).
A great system -- no income tax means that the REAL rich (those making huge amounts of money) can just go to Canada or Mexico and buy whatever they want (or buy it through the Internet and have it shipped to the US) and dodge the "consumption tax" completely. Oh, it might take a bit of effort to avoid the tax, but if you have enough money, what's the problem with spending a little effort to avoid paying ANY tax. The offshore banked money could return (or so Huckabee suggested) and be taxed, but since Cayman Island (and the like) bank accounts are typically for the RICH not for people like you or me, I rather doubt that it would be used locally -- and taxed thereby.
This is a case of the candidate (Huckabee) trying to take advantage of the fact that most people are incapable of doing simple calculations. They will hear "23%" and assume that this means $0.23 on the dollar (as other sales taxes do). The truth of the matter is that it would be a 30% tax ($0.30 on the dollar), and added to local sales taxes would, for some of us, amount to a total of 38.25% tax on all purchases other than food. Sure, I wouldn't have to pay income tax; but it wouldn't be "revenue neutral" in my case -- I pay a good deal less on Federal tax than 30% overall.
I'd still pay FICA, I'd still pay State income tax (11% marginal rate on the top bracket), and I'd end up paying far more of my income in taxes. Of course, the Republicans hate the middle class based on their behaviors of the last 8 years, so it's no great surprise that they would like something like a "fair tax" of 30%.
I say it's spinach and I say to hell with it.
