Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Will New Hampshire Republicans Buy Into Huckabee's Flat Tax Plan?

By Nancy Scola, AlterNet. Posted January 6, 2008.


Mike Huckabee may encounter strong resistance to a 30 percent national sales tax in a state that hates consumer taxes.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Nancy Scola

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

A New Year's Day mini-shopping spree found me the new owner of a pea-green and day-glo orange nylon-webbed day bag. After a few hours of ownership, I regained my senses and returned it. With former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's breathtaking Iowa caucus victory, Republicans can be forgiven for experiencing a similar case of buyer's remorse.

Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, was until recently best known for rapidly shedding more than 110 pounds and hawking the diet guide Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork. Huckabee roared onto the political scene in August with a second-place finish in the Iowa GOP's Ames Straw Poll. The surprising secret to that win? Huckabee's ministry of FairTax, a sales-tax-based overhaul of the American economic system. The Houston-based Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) bused in thousands of FairTax supporters to pave Huckabee's way to a strong finish, igniting the Huck-a-fire that tore through Iowa and races to New Hampshire for Tuesday's vote.

The FairTax (and yes, in advocates' preferred styling, it lacks a space) was first laid out in 2005 by Atlanta radio host Neal Boortz and Georgia congressman John Linder in their The FairTax Book. The plan dramatically reworks the way America fills its public coffers, shuttering the Internal Revenue Service and abolishing personal income taxes. Great! But wait, um, how are we supposed to fund the federal government? The FairTax answer: with a 30 percent sales tax on everything we eat, drink, buy new or otherwise consume.

Huckabee swoons over the FairTax on the campaign trail. On his official website -- where FairTax is the long and the short of his "economic plan" -- Huckabee calls the proposal "like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness." More soberly, the Wall Street Journal has called it "the most radical reform imaginable," in part because it seeks to repeal the 16th amendment ("the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes").

The 2008 presidential race's compressed scheduled gives Granite State Republicans -- and, importantly, independents who can vote in either party's primary -- less than a week to make sense of the new GOP frontrunner's economic gamble. Huckabee knows well that selling a 30 percent consumer tax in the famously income-tax and sales-tax free state will require hurried and skilled salesmanship. Said Huckabee while discussing FairTax on CBS's Early Show the morning after his Iowa win, "We only have a few days to close the sale."

Huckabee will have to hustle to get New Hampshirites to swallow "prebates," the government checks that, under the plan, Uncle Sam will hand over to each and every American each and every month. The way a FairTax regime works, a single person is allocated an annual "consumption allowance" of $10,210 and receives a monthly government payout of $196. A married couple with two children, a $27,380 annual allowance and $525 monthly check. So, sure, the FairTax would do away with the dreaded Internal Revenue Service. But some behemoth government agency is going to be charged with making sure we get our $400 billion or so in payout checks each year.

These government checks are the attempt by FairTax advocates to assure skeptics that the American tax regime will stay progressive -- with the greatest burden on the wealthiest among us. AFFT argues that "wealthy people" buy more and better anyway: "filet mignon instead of hamburger, fine wine instead of beer." But prebates function as a safety mechanism, allocating each American an allowance that gives a tax break to the essential goods (say, food and drink) and services (say, childcare) consumed before he or she crosses federal poverty line.

Prebates are a bedrock component of FairTax. But they're one of the few cut-and-dry things about the plan. Take that 30 percent tax rate itself, for example. FairTaxers, Huckabee included, pitch FairTax as a 23 percent add-on to the cost of goods and services. How do they arrive at that lower rate? By calculating it as "tax-inclusive." That's how we think of income taxes taken from our paychecks. But it's the way no human being understands sales tax.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: flat tax, mike huckabee, gop, wall street journal

Nancy Scola is a Brooklyn-based writer who has in the past served as the chief blogger at Air America, an aide to former Virginia Governor Mark Warner as he explored a run for the presidency, and a congressional staffer on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A High Sales Tax Would Be Good For The Enviornment
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 6, 2008 4:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While there are definitely some legitimate concerns over this plan, a 30% sales tax would certainly significantly reduce American overconsumption. It's disturbing that most leftists, like author Nancy Scola, have no concern for the environment and think that endless economic growth is good. Sorry, but endless growth is the agenda of cancer cells, and that's the same effect humans are having on the Earth by their endless growth of population and consumption.

It is also disturbing that a progressive writer turns to the fascist Wall Street Journal editorial department to find arguments against a high sales tax. That the Wall Street Journal opposes this tax is good evidence that it would probably be a good thing.

The one thing I would change in this proposal is to make necessities, like food, clothing, public transit passes and bicycles, and homes below a certain size, free from the tax. Doing that would be far preferable to doling out checks every month to everyone, a needless and wasteful exercise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FairTax, another oxymoron
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Jan 6, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any proposal from a man who believes the world was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago has to be viewed as nutty.

Americans should reject any tax except taxes on income. Sales taxes, value added taxes, and property taxes should all be abolished nationwide. A steeply progressive tax on income, from whatever source, is the only fair way to tax ourselves and fund the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scam Artist....
Posted by: CatDad on Jan 6, 2008 5:18 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A national sales tax is massively regressive...and worse....when this type of tax is instituted...the percentage taken out inevitably grows in increments so that in five or ten years the rates double. Getting a VAT tax in the USA is the conservative movements wet dream...and who else to push this agenda? None other than the Christian pseudo populist Huckabee...master scam artist and tool of the corporate class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing But A Give Away Program to The Very Rich
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 6, 2008 6:04 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, Huckabee and the neocon Repubs. would want a tax like this. The goal is so that the massive rake-in's from hedge funds, "investments" and CEO salaries would not be taxed. What a windfall that would be! Meanwhile, the poor serf's on the bottom pay for everything. You know, the bottom 50% that owns 1/3rd of America's wealth (the top 1% also owning 1/3rd of America's wealth). So, everyone gets some rinky-dink rebate, which will eventually be reduced to nothing anyway, so what? This program is a give away to the very rich, and that is what it is meant to be. Make no mistake about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever happened to progressive taxation?
Posted by: erinm on Jan 6, 2008 6:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regressive taxation is in the speech of both parties with darn little commentary in the media. We are relying on it more and more to fix shortfalls in every state while an unpopular war and regressive tax breaks suck the funds out of the societal safety net for the poor [social security, food stamps, medicare, etc.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FairTax works!
Posted by: mark m on Jan 6, 2008 7:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The FairTax is simply an exchange of the 22% corporate tax now in items for the 23% sales tax. Prices remain virtually the same, except now one would have their gross paycheck, so people would buy even more items, further increasing the GDP and tax revenue. All would be taxed with the fairtax vs. 60% who pay income tax. A broader base of taxpayers = more tax revenue. Brilliant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FairTax works! Posted by: CatDad
» gross paycheck...NOT! Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: gross paycheck...NOT! Posted by: Duetmaster
Consumption tax is the only fair tax
Posted by: rcfa on Jan 6, 2008 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the amount you consume is the true measure of wealth, and the true measure of burden caused on infrastructure and the environment.

Further, all spending is taxed, regardless if the money comes from inheritance, trust fund, capital gains, salary, lottery wins. It's taxed if its spent by tourists or residents: you are N days at location X, you pay N days worth of taxes at location X, because you consume N days worth of goods at location X.

As a matter of fact, corporate income taxes should go away, too, because the consumer pays for them anyway, as part of the product's price, and all corporate taxes serve is as a means to disguise to the eye of the public the true level of taxation.

The argument that it might be bad for the economy because it would put a damper on consumer spending, is GOOD NEWS for several reasons:

First, it's a sign of a sick economy if it's propped up solely by consumer spending. Dragging out a collapse by keeping consumer spending going is the wrong strategy

Second, the US has a too high consumption rate and too low a savings rate, which in turn results in higher than necessary burdens on the welfare system and a lack of independence in people.

The net result of such a tax would be fewer loopholes, lower administrative overhead, and better incentives for saving and investment over senseless consumption. It is also a tax that would help show the actual level of taxation to the public, and thus increase the public's pressure for a low overhead government. It is, in fact, the complete opposite of Bush's "Hummer driver tax incentive", and likely the only thing I like about the idea of Huckabee being a potential President of the USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» so, really... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» Can you spot the irony? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Keep Corporate Taxes Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
FairTax - Better TODAY, Best TOMORROW
Posted by: ih2005 on Jan 6, 2008 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Economist Dale Jorgensen, Harvard University, was commissioned to find out what portion of current prices were represented by costs for complying with the federal income tax code (i.e., embedded tax costs). He concluded that 22% (average) of every retail dollar, spent by consumers, constituted a price-embedded tax. Thus, in addition to individual income tax and FICA withholding, individuals are unwittingly paying these unseen, embedded business tax costs with every purchase of a new product, or service.

Under FairTax, prices would fall, due to removal of embedded business tax-related costs. Concurrently, wages may rise due to a mix of factors, including reversion of withheld pay (or some portion thereof) to employees, advancement opportunities due to business expansion resulting from retained earnings, and/or increased demand for labor accompanying increased competition (from that expansion). Where profits (or wages) appear lucrative, competition will move into the market space, driving out excesses (immediately present after FairTax is enacted), arriving at new "market-adjusted" prices.

For FairTax to constitute 23% of new transaction cost (i.e., "market-adjusted" price plus FairTax), a mark-up of 29.9% (tax exclusive rate) on the new "market-adjusted" price is necessary. (Before balking, consider what we're paying now if income tax rates are converted to tax-exclusive sales tax rates on net income instead of percentage of gross income. The following figures can be compared to the 29.9% FairTax mark-up: Fifteen pct bracket = 17.6%, twenty-five pct bracket = 33.3%, twenty-eight pct bracket = 38.9% (! really), and thirty-five pct bracket = 53.8% (! that's how bad it is).

In order to make FairTax a progressive consumption tax (such as that recently called for by Warren Buffett), all citizen-families are simply sent a monthly consumption [tax] allowance, called a "prebate." This prebate is intended to reimburse taxes on necessities for every citizen family without need for record-keeping or reporting. Moreover, the direct payment bypasses the creation of a tax code specifying exempted products and services around which a lobbyist industry could grow. The amount is variable, based on family size, and is equal to the FairTax rate on poverty-level spending, as defined by the Dept. of Commerce. At present, a family of one would receive ~$200/month, a family of four, ~$500/month. Thus, the "effective" FairTax rate paid by citizens, will *never* equal the full 23%. Of course, U.S. visitors (legal, and illegal) will pay the full FairTax when they purchase anything new, at retail (used are not taxed again). Under FairTax, working families will have their whole paychecks (minus any state or local income tax withholding) plus their monthly family prebate.

Additionally, citizens will no longer have to spend the average 50 hours per year preparing their federal tax returns. Having more monthly income may result in using credit less, and saving more. Larger savings will make it easier to purchase a home, at a lower interest rate and monthly payment. (Thus, mortgage deductions are no longer applicable when income is not the basis for taxation).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This Prebate Is Ridiculous Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
This whole thing is just a version of the arch-reactionary Niel Boortz flat tax plan
Posted by: yellow on Jan 7, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this flat tax nonsense is just an angle to empty the federal Till to the corporations and the rich and eliminate all progressive and even vaguely redistributive taxes in the US. In the first place, the tax issue is bullshit. Tax cuts only really even significantly have a total net impact the upper fifth of the income scale of which the upper 1% is really the prime beneficiary. The real issue for all those at or below the median income, about thirty million of which are at or near the poverty level despite full time plus employment, is wages and benefits. Making an issue of taxes, inflation, the value of the currency and other shit is just more misleading shit from wingnut populist Ron Paul shills who want to promote this BS agenda.

In the first place, federal income tax receipts have always fluctuated between 25 and 31% of the total US GDP. The impact on economic growth of taxation is nil. There is no correlation between taxation levels and GDP growth on way or another. Overall macro economic conditions in the economy determine growth projections. Much of it turns on levels of employment and effective consumer demand for goods and services. High average annual growth rates have coexisted with high marginal rates of federal income and capital gains taxation. The same is true of the reverse. Since the 1980s, on and off, there have been very low marginal rates of taxation along with recession and stagnation. The current period is a sterling example. Furthermore, cuts in federal income taxes have been more than offset by dramatic increases in local state, sales and property taxes which are usually highly regressive.

The government has big bills. Not all of it is for worthwhile endeavors but the deficit is growing and this is no time to pitch more tax cuts for the rich. We are in real trouble and the future of our economy depends on balancing out the debt madness of the last eight years. It is a great irony that the Republicans, the supposed party of fiscal restraint, has nearly destroyed the economy and is busy setting up the conditions for its further demise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FairTax is Revenue Neutral
Posted by: vanderbh on Jan 7, 2008 2:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The $14. sandwich mentioned in the article will not ber $18.20 under the FairTax because
hard economic research by respected scholars on the price of consumer goods reveals that from 20% to 25% (depending on the product) of all prices today represent hidden income taxes and payroll taxes. Once these taxes are repealed and replaced with the FairTax, it is likely that market pressure would force retail prices to fall. The proper tax rate has been carefully worked out; 23 percent does the job of: (1) raising the same amount of federal funds as are raised by the current system, (2) paying the universal rebate, and (3) paying the collection fees to retailers and state governments. Also consider that only 30% of the people pay Income Tax, whereas 100% will pay with the FairTax. This includes the 50 Million visitors to America as well as illegal aliens. Unlike some other proposals, this rate has been independently confirmed by several different, nonpartisan institutions across the country. Detailed calculations are available from FairTax.org. Additionally, there are 80 professional and university economists who endorse the FairTax Plan as cited in an open letter to the President, Congress, and the American people (letter available at www.FairTax,org).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not sure why people are so against it
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 8, 2008 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With exemptions for the poor and/or unemployed, this tax would allow people to keep more of their paycheck while limiting spending on nonessential items. How is that a bad thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edisto Joe
Posted by: Edisto Joe on Jan 23, 2008 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding the cost of that $14 lobster roll sandwich:

The author says that the 30% FairTax would be added to the current price of $14 making the final cost around $18.20.

The FairTax would remove the embedded taxes that are a component of that $14. The lobster fisherman currently pays income taxes on his profits...likewise the trucking company that delivers the products, the baker, the food service vendor and every other party involved in getting that sandwich to your table, also pays taxes on their share of the profit.

Studies have shown that all of the tax related embedded costs, on average, comprise around 22% of the production cost of virtually everything we buy. With the FairTax, those costs are no longer part of that $14 price. Take away the embedded taxes and add back the 23% FairTax and the final price would be right back to around the original $14 retail price.

But for argument sake, let's assume that the author is correct and the FairTax is added to that $14 dollar sandwich. Let’s also assume that the person sitting down to eat that sandwich is a middle income earner in the 25% tax bracket. In addition, she also pays 7.65% FICA tax making the total take by the Fed 32.65% of gross earnings... or almost 1/3 of that person's wages.

So exactly how much does that $14 sandwich cost? If one third of your gross wages are taxed away, you will first have to earn $21 in order to have $14 left over after taxes for you to be able to buy that sandwich. Using the author's math, you would still be better off with the FairTax as you would only have to earn $18.20 in order to be able to pay for a $18.20 item. But as noted above, that $14 sandwich would remain costing around $14… but with the FairTax, you would only have to earn $14 to pay for it.

But what if it wasn't a sandwich that you are buying? What if it was a used car, or an existing house? What if you need to pay for your child's tuition?

The author makes no mention that used items, eduation tuition and investments transactions are not subject to the FairTax. Likewise for business to business ("B-to-B") transactions (which is why the FairTax is different from a VAT tax that taxes every step of production from the lobster fisherman to the plate setting on your table).

These items are not taxed... and you still get to spend untaxed earnings when you make those purchases.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]