Slate Magazine on Huckabee's Tax Plan

[Keller]

Pretty astute from my perspective.

Teaser: "Mike Huckabee is not my favorite candidate, though I relish the irony of an evolution-denier whose basic appeal is to voters' most apelike instincts. But I do give him credit for one thing: an innovative tax plan that's being trashed by journalists (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0534975120080107) who almost universally fail to understand its consequences."


Cite: http://www.slate.com/id/2181833

[CrystalTears]

Huckabee's tax reform is the one issue that I most agree with him on. I just realize that it will be difficult to get off the ground, but it would have been nice to see implemented.

[ClydeR]

You guys should definitely join Huck's Army (http://www.hucksarmy.com/).

[Hulkein]

No thanks, I'm a fiscal conservative.

[Gan]

I've always been a fan of a national sales tax to replace the income tax, simply because it doesnt discourage savings or punish the taxpayer for earning a living.

However, I did NOT consider combining that with an unlimited IRA.

Very interesting.

:thinking:


(the nice thing is that this idea can take root and could be adopted by any congressman/president)

[Gan]

No thanks, I'm a fiscal conservative.

How exactly is a national sales tax not fiscally conservative?

[Hulkein]

I was responding to Clyder's post only about joining 'Huck's Army', not this general idea.

[ClydeR]

I've always been a fan of a national sales tax to replace the income tax, simply because it doesnt discourage savings or punish the taxpayer for earning a living.

However, I did NOT consider combining that with an unlimited IRA.


The "unlimited IRA" comes about because of elimination of the income tax. Under the Fair Tax, any money you save, plus the interest you earn on your savings, is effectively treated like an IRA because there is no income tax on the money when you take it out of the IRA and because the earnings are not subject to tax.

[Gan]

I was responding to Clyder's post only about joining 'Huck's Army', not this general idea.
Ahh.

Right on then.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/j.sahlberg/images/keep_on_truckin.jpg

[Gan]

The "unlimited IRA" comes about because of elimination of the income tax. Under the Fair Tax, any money you save, plus the interest you earn on your savings, is effectively treated like an IRA because there is no income tax on the money when you take it out of the IRA and because the earnings are not subject to tax.

Thanks Capt. Obvious. I read the article too. ;)

[Keller]

I've always been a fan of a national sales tax to replace the income tax, simply because it doesnt discourage savings or punish the taxpayer for earning a living.

However, I did NOT consider combining that with an unlimited IRA.

Very interesting.

:thinking:


(the nice thing is that this idea can take root and could be adopted by any congressman/president)

Exactly. We're NEVER going to adopt a flat tax or "fair tax" as some call it. But unlimited IRAs basically yields the "tax efficient" result without revolutionary change in the tax system. Plus, you still keep the progressive system with respect to spending, so long as you keep your "savings" in the IRA.

[radamanthys]

I'm really for separation of church and state. There's no way I can assume Huck is for that. However, his shining point is that he's the only republican who supports this tax plan, which is a major thing to me.

I'm, however, scared that we'll end up with a 30% sales tax, as well as a national income tax. The 16th amendment must be repealed first. And fuckall if that's happening.

[Bhuryn]

I love how Huckabee is getting credit... http://www.fairtax.org/

They've been around since the mid 90's and they came up with the flat tax idea. That said the one nice thing about a flat tax system is once the government decides they don't need to spend trillions of dollars a year it is alot easier to reduce this system them to reduce the current tax system.

Oh, and ask the Brits how well the VAT works, sure their medical bills are paid, but the service sucks.


I'm really for separation of church and state. There's no way I can assume Huck is for that.

He doesn't really have to be, considering it's not part of the constitution. Seperation of Church and state only appeared in one of Jefferson's Letters. So yeah, you have a right to be scared, not that he can legally promote any bills leaning to one church or another but still.

Huckabee is scary simply because he comes off a bit like a Zealot sometimes and we don't need a zealot in office.

[Keller]

Are you guys even reading the article?

It has a lot less to do with Huckabee and a lot more to do with the prospective idea of implementing unlimited IRAs, keeping the graduated income tax, and therefore creating a graduated sales tax which promotes savings. All without any radical change in the tax code (radical as compared to a straight out sales tax).

[Farquar]

He doesn't really have to be, considering it's not part of the constitution. Seperation of Church and state only appeared in one of Jefferson's Letters. So yeah, you have a right to be scared, not that he can legally promote any bills leaning to one church or another but still.

Interesting argument there. So because having sex with sheep isn't explicitly prohibited in the Constitution, you would find it palatable if Hucks isn't against it?

Get real. The principle is implied-just like many of the canonical Constitutional rights we enjoy today.

[Gan]

I love how Huckabee is getting credit... http://www.fairtax.org/

They've been around since the mid 90's and they came up with the flat tax idea. That said the one nice thing about a flat tax system is once the government decides they don't need to spend trillions of dollars a year it is alot easier to reduce this system them to reduce the current tax system.


Huckabee is scary simply because he comes off a bit like a Zealot sometimes and we don't need a zealot in office.

A national sales tax idea has been around a lot longer than the fair tax plan.

So that would make www.fairtax.org (http://www.fairtax.org) trying to take credit for something thats been around longer? ;)

And I agree with your last part.

[CrystalTears]

I believe the reason Huckabee is getting "credit" for the fair tax is because he's the only candidate running (that I can tell) who wants to implement it, not because he invented it. It's the main reason I want to vote for him but have my doubts about other aspects.

[Sean of the Thread]

That's why CT voted for Al Gore... she lo0ves the internetz.

[CrystalTears]

:lol: I so did not.

[TheEschaton]

I wonder how people read the Establishment clause in the 1st amendment as NOT delineating the separation of Church and State, when the person who wrote it (Madison) says in a different place that it is about the separation of Church and State?

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Was the "different place" in the constitution?

This is a real question.

[TheEschaton]

The different place was in Madison's Remonstrance. Even if you are a strict constructionist, the words that the State shall not establish any religion seem pretty clear to me.

-TheE-

[CrystalTears]

It doesn't seem clear to me. Sounds like they're saying that the state won't establish a religion that everyone must follow.

[TheEschaton]

Well, 225+ years of constitutional law has said it means more than that, that not only can the state not establish a religion, it cannot respect one more than any other (which is 'establishment' of it over others), often called endorsement, nor can one religion participate in gov't to the exclusion of others.

-TheE-

[ClydeR]

Well, 225+ years of constitutional law has said it means more than that, that not only can the state not establish a religion, it cannot respect one more than any other (which is 'establishment' of it over others), often called endorsement, nor can one religion participate in gov't to the exclusion of others.

Even if what you say is true, that's not the same thing as a separation of church and state. If all religions are allowed to participate in government on equal terms, then there is hardly a separation.

[Keller]

Even if what you say is true, that's not the same thing as a separation of church and state. If all religions are allowed to participate in government on equal terms, then there is hardly a separation.

I can't even begin to imagine the hissy-fit you'd throw if another religion was involved in Government. Give me a break!

[Tsa`ah]

Even if what you say is true,

It is true. Look it up.


that's not the same thing as a separation of church and state.

It is exactly that.


If all religions are allowed to participate in government on equal terms, then there is hardly a separation.

Religions may not participate in government, people can.

[ClydeR]

...nor can one religion participate in gov't to the exclusion of others.


Even if what you say is true, that's not the same thing as a separation of church and state. If all religions are allowed to participate in government on equal terms, then there is hardly a separation.


I can't even begin to imagine the hissy-fit you'd throw if another religion was involved in Government. Give me a break!

Multiple religions already participate in our government, and our government participates in multiple religions. Just look at the opening prayer in Congress each day. They have Presbyterians, Methodists, Jews, Catholics, Baptists, etc.

[Gan]

I get a chuckle anytime a creationist requires hard evidence to back up what someone else says.

[Tsa`ah]

Multiple religions already participate in our government, and our government participates in multiple religions. Just look at the opening prayer in Congress each day. They have Presbyterians, Methodists, Jews, Catholics, Baptists, etc.

This is a voluntary prayer for the benefit of individuals. I can't even begin to fathom how you can translate congressmen/women participating in a voluntary prayer into religion participating in government.

Wait, I can understand how a simple mind can come to the conclusion of individuals equaling the whole of government ... paint chips and shaken baby syndrome.

[TheEschaton]

The question of whether all religions can participate in gov't, or if gov't can participate in all religions, is a highly litigated issue. The Warren Court set down a strict wall of separation, saying that no religion could be found in gov't, and no gov't involvement could occur in any religion.

However, the subsequent Burger and Rehnquist courts (and now the Roberts court) have been slowly eroding this, and now it's generally acceptable that if a gov't endorses 'all' of the religions, it's ok. IE, if there's a 'holiday' display, it's not okay if it's just a nativity scene, but if it has a star of david, and something to denote Ramadan, or it's couched in a historical context, it may be okay.

'All' is another highly contentious issue. Do you have to have the 'big three' of the religions that arose in the Middle East, Christianity, Judaism, and ISlam? Is Judeo-Christianity alone okay? Do you need to include non-significant (in terms of populations who believe it in the U.S.) religions? Hinduism? Buddhism? B'hai? No Hindu has ever sued because his religion was excluded from a 'holiday' display which failed to denote Diwali, so we don't know yet.

Can a gov't fund religious organizations if it doesn't discriminate which ones it funds? SCOTUS said yes, if it's indirect, but there are still many harsh critics of that idea, since some of these organizations promote religious ideas which go against currently accepted methodology in certain fields (IE, Christian organizations which talk about the evils of condoms in the social work field, when they've been shown to be perfectly safe).

I, of course, disagree with the previous 30 years of case law set down by Burger/Rehnquist/Roberts. To me, it seems like it has to be an "all or nothing" approach, if you're going to endorse a religion, whether it be through a display of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse or what have you, you have to then endorse all views. Since one view is atheism, you cannot effectively endorse all views, and thus should not endorse any views. Even if you exclude atheism, which many have argued for, you cannot effectively equally endorse all religions in such a diverse, pluralistic society. In the end, Christianity is always seen as, and perceived, as being held up. Part of the test to determine constitutionality, of course, is whether someone who is outside the group would reasonably feel excluded from participating because of a reasonable perception of it being only for one religion. That is why the GA gov'r having a prayer session for rain is so troublesome - while he says it is open to everyone, he as an Evangelical Christian (and the message that sends - IE, hell for anyone who doesn't believe) effectively dissaudes and prevents the average Hindu or even Muslim from participating - and thus should be unconstitutional.

But this is just my impression after two semesters of Constitutional Law, and another semester of Church and State, a class which solely focused on the Establishment/Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. I could have no idea what I'm talking about.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

I get a chuckle anytime a creationist requires hard evidence to back up what someone else says.

I nominate this for post of the day.



Crack my ass up.. glad no one was here to hear me snort.

[Gan]

The question of whether all religions can participate in gov't, or if gov't can participate in all religions, is a highly litigated issue. The Warren Court set down a strict wall of separation, saying that no religion could be found in gov't, and no gov't involvement could occur in any religion.

However, the subsequent Burger and Rehnquist courts (and now the Roberts court) have been slowly eroding this, and now it's generally acceptable that if a gov't endorses 'all' of the religions, it's ok. IE, if there's a 'holiday' display, it's not okay if it's just a nativity scene, but if it has a star of david, and something to denote Ramadan, or it's couched in a historical context, it may be okay.

'All' is another highly contentious issue. Do you have to have the 'big three' of the religions that arose in the Middle East, Christianity, Judaism, and ISlam? Is Judeo-Christianity alone okay? Do you need to include non-significant (in terms of populations who believe it in the U.S.) religions? Hinduism? Buddhism? B'hai? No Hindu has ever sued because his religion was excluded from a 'holiday' display which failed to denote Diwali, so we don't know yet.

Can a gov't fund religious organizations if it doesn't discriminate which ones it funds? SCOTUS said yes, if it's indirect, but there are still many harsh critics of that idea, since some of these organizations promote religious ideas which go against currently accepted methodology in certain fields (IE, Christian organizations which talk about the evils of condoms in the social work field, when they've been shown to be perfectly safe).

I, of course, disagree with the previous 30 years of case law set down by Burger/Rehnquist/Roberts. To me, it seems like it has to be an "all or nothing" approach, if you're going to endorse a religion, whether it be through a display of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse or what have you, you have to then endorse all views. Since one view is atheism, you cannot effectively endorse all views, and thus should not endorse any views. Even if you exclude atheism, which many have argued for, you cannot effectively equally endorse all religions in such a diverse, pluralistic society. In the end, Christianity is always seen as, and perceived, as being held up. Part of the test to determine constitutionality, of course, is whether someone who is outside the group would reasonably feel excluded from participating because of a reasonable perception of it being only for one religion. That is why the GA gov'r having a prayer session for rain is so troublesome - while he says it is open to everyone, he as an Evangelical Christian (and the message that sends - IE, hell for anyone who doesn't believe) effectively dissaudes and prevents the average Hindu or even Muslim from participating - and thus should be unconstitutional.

But this is just my impression after two semesters of Constitutional Law, and another semester of Church and State, a class which solely focused on the Establishment/Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. I could have no idea what I'm talking about.

-TheE-

Good post. I'm of the same opinion.

[ClydeR]

...Christian organizations which talk about the evils of condoms in the social work field, when they've been shown to be perfectly safe...

If you are referring to the risk of unwanted pregnancy or the risk of disease transmission, then condoms are not "perfectly" safe. Only abstinence is perfectly safe.

[Gan]

Only abstinence is perfectly safe.

You dont happen to be a member of the Clergy (catholic) do you?

Abstinence may be safe for the first person, but it sucks for the little boys who have to be around those who are practicing abstinence... :(

OH WAIT, THATS CELEBACY!

:banghead:

[Tsa`ah]

If you are referring to the risk of unwanted pregnancy or the risk of disease transmission, then condoms are not "perfectly" safe. Only abstinence is perfectly safe.

It's called legislating morality dip shit.

[Warriorbird]

"Abstinence" increases unprotected sex... thus, in fact, being less safe.