Vote here now!

[doctork]

I didn't see the debate, couldn't figure out when it was on here, and what channel.

What is wrong with Huckabee's tax plan? What is it anyway? I was very disappointed with McCain's (lack of) response to the woman who asked him, in reference to Senator Clinton, "So how do we beat the bitch?" I don't like Senator Clinton, but I dislike sexism even more; the lack of any outrage or comment on the matter suggests Senator McCain is not alone in his prejudice. I used to admire him for his forthrightness and willingness to say what he believes.

David Broder (I think) wrote a recent column suggesting that Americans are looking for authenticity (candidates know who they are and are comfortable with it), transparency (they say what they mean), and unity (enough with the endless partisanship that accomplishes nothing). He noted that Huckabee has all three characteristics in generous amounts. I was certainly impressed with Governor Huckabee when I met him last summer, even though he is extremely conservative. At least he appears honest and straight-speaking.

I really wish we didn't have to deal with all this political stuff during the holiday season, a year in advance of the election. We'll be sick of all of them long before November 2008.

[joew]

Essentially, as I understand it, Huckabee's proposal is a national sales tax. Nice way for ordinary folks to keep paying on almost everything they get, because they have to spend it, while people who can invest most of their receipts pay no tax. I'd much prefer a flat or nearly flat income tax with a decent personal exemption and virtally no other deductions. I'd even prefer the current system.

As for McCain's lack of a good comeback to the question about how to beat Sen. Clinton, I think that people don't always react in the best way possible to an unexpected shocker. He didn't upbraid the questioner, but I don't think it is fair to equate that to even tacit approval of the characterization.

[SeattleDan]

I agree with you, joew, about a national sales tax. Competely regressive. However a flat tax is the same deal. How about a Progressive income tax?

I saw McCain's response on YouTube. He should have somehow chastised the questioner. He has been known to be one of the more collegial members of the Senate. He and John Kerry are friends. Even if he isn't friends with Sen. Clinton, he should have said something to the effect that he rejected that particular charactization.

[joew]

Seattle Dan —

With generous exemptions I think a flat-rate income tax is less regressive than a sales tax. But, as I say, the present, progressive, system is preferable IMO to a sales tax. A simplified progressive income tax, with most deductions and credits eliminated, would also be better. I think unless a very high personal exemption effectively makes the flat tax progressive, a moderately progressive system is better.

I agree that McCain would have done well to rebuke the questioner. But I still think that when, in effect, you're ambushed by something like that, your spur-of-the-moment reaction should not be make-or-break for your candidacy.

[SeattleDan]

Seeing that our scores on economics weren't great, I'll have to defer to you. The present system is probably better than those proposed. However, as the Forbes flat tax scheme went, 17% of my income is not nearly the same as Mr. Forbes. But, yes, a progressive income tax without so many exemptions looks good.

For McCain, I understand he was kinda ambushed. But he's gotta be able to think on his feet. But as you know, I'm not going to vote for any of the leading GOP candidates come next November, anyway, so I probably shouldn't get into a debate about how the various candidates on that side respond to questions.

Though, I'll note, Giluani seems to be sinking like a stone. Suspected he would.

[michael]

I should know better than to join in on a political thread, but then, when did I ever learn?

The only democratic candidate that holds my interest so far is Barack Obama. The only republican that holds my interest is… no one yet.

[joew]

Apparently you're a hard man to interest, michael. But there's stll a lot of time for you to find others worth your attention.

[michael]

Yes, Joe, there’s plenty of time. I'm pretty naive when it comes to politics. I just wish there was a candidate that I could respect, an honest Joe (or Josephine), someone that if elected, I could point at and say with pride “that’s the President of the United States, and I’m damn glad of it”. I’m a dreamer.

[SeattleDan]

I'd say Barack is worth your interest, Michael. He's a flawed human being, as are we all. But he offers HOPE!

[michael]

dand said:

I'd say Barack is worth your interest, Michael. He's a flawed human being, as are we all. But he offers HOPE!

I'm in agreement with you Dan.

[gailkate]

Yaaaay! That's at least 3 of us in agreement.

Here's my flat tax example I haul out to everyone's yawns periodically.

Suppose we paid taxes in shoes. Suppose we had a 50% flat tax. Mrs. Markos would lose 1/2 of her at least 3000 pairs of shoes, leaving her with 1500 pair. The guy who buys one new pair of shoes and replaces them when they're worn out would pay half his shoe wealth and have to hop on one foot.

The regressiveness of a sales tax is something I think we all are used to accepting unthinkingly. Just as there would be a personal exemption in income, there would be a base sales tax exemption. Beyond that, the excessive consumers would pay for the privilege. Look at the costs people - even relatively ordinary people - incur for high-end clothing and lattés and cars and housing our parents would never have dreamed of in their lifetime. Then consider the real consumers who have whole rooms for their designer duds and several homes and cars and airplanes. The rich not only get richer, they are plundering the planet.

Do any of you remember the old sales tax exemption? If you went over a certain dollar amount - say, buying a car - you could write that off. The sales tax being proposed now would let you write off the base but pay tax on everything above it. Fair and sound policy.

[doctork]

I like Barack Obama too, largely because I am ready for a change, and would like to see someone who is honest and hopeful, not just more of the same. But I'm not anywhere near making a decision - you're not alone Mike.

As for the flat tax, it is potentially more regressive, but with all the complex deductions of our tax system, I suspect that our "progressive income tax" isn't really that progressive. "Little people" can't really take advantage of those tax breaks designed for the wealthy. And it sure would be easier.

How about a sales tax that is levied on goods other than basic necessities? Some states don't charge sales tax on food and clothing, maybe the feds could arrange something similar.

Also, I wonder if everyone paid taxes the way the self-employed do, wouldn't there be a true tax revolution? If everyone had to write quarterly checks to the government, taking money already in your bank account and handing it over to the guv'mint, instead of getting a "gift" of a refund each April, wouldn't people see things differently? It would be much clearer that government programs actually spend your money, not "Other People's."

[joew]

I don't know for a fact, but I think that the amount raised by state sales taxes with exemptions for food and clothing, extrapolated for nationwide coverage, would not come anywhere near replacing the amount raised by the federal income tax unless the rate were much higher than what the states charge.

The main thing I don't like about switching to a sales tax, apart from the regressive tendency in general is that if you're raking in the big bucks and salting most of it away in investments, you don't even need loopholes to have the part you invest come to you tax free. For example, on an income of $5 million per year, if you spend $1 million and invest the rest, you pay no tax on the $4 million. And then you retire to Ireland or the Bahamas and spend it there, and the little guy has to pick up the tab for whatever you would have paid in income tax on the $4mil.

[gailkate]

I agree the loopholes for the filthy rich are unfair. But they can't just not pay taxes on investments, can they? There's capital gains tax every year - so are you saying the income invested isn't taxed, just the amount that income earns?

In MN we don't tax food or clothing. There is a special tax on furs, but if your tastes run to Manolo Blahnik (did I spell that right?) shoes, they're not taxed. I could buy a new outfit every day at Nieman Marcus and pay no tax.

Restaurant meals are taxed, as is an interesting array of junk items. Candy, for instance, but not KitKats or Twix, because they contain grain which MN farmers argue is food, not junk.

[doctork]

The sales tax would need to be higher, but since most sales taxes are in the range of 0 - 9%, and income taxes are in the range of 10 - 50%, there is a lot of room for change. Isn't government spending somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 - 20% of gross national product (not GDP but some other economic measure of all money produced)?

Few retirees even move to another state (less than 15%), let alone out of the country. IIRC, there are 45 - 50 million retirees, while only a few hundred thousand Social Security checks go to those living overseas. And given that the vast majority of Americans either have very little in savings (rate is currently just under 1%), or live paycheck to paycheck with no savings, I'd guess the "great wealthy untaxed" would be a very small segment.

Since investments by the "wealthy" (including the little guys' pension plans, IRA's and 401K's) are what gives all of us the funds lent to buy homes, start businesses and develop new products, I've no grudge against paying a fair interest rate to those who make the money available to us. That they get their money back (after paying the relevant taxes) is not offensive to me. That is what all of us plan to do with our IRA's and 401k's.

There will always be a few Leona Helmsleys and Nazis giving a bad name to investment tax breaks and free speech, but I can live with that, given the other benefits of our free society. (My possible impending move to high-tax Canada notwithstanding)

[gailkate]

Within reason, I accept the concept of earning on investment. But Kristin, you of all people know that the corporatocrats (what a mouthful - maybe we'd better say plutocrats) are reaping far more than they deserve. The question of "deserving" is endlessly debatable. I like Bill Gates's take on that - he owes his wealth to the myriad opportunities this country offers.

I don't think the rich "let" us use their money. They make it or inherit it from the labor of all who do the work. We let them profit. The more they have, the more they acquire - land, transportation, natural resorces.

There's something wrong in any human community that lets wealth measure worth. We know the gulf between rich and poor is growing deeper, wider and more impossible to bridge. I see it as a moral wrong.

[joew]

gailkate said:

I agree the loopholes for the filthy rich are unfair. But they can't just not pay taxes on investments, can they? There's capital gains tax every year - so are you saying the income invested isn't taxed, just the amount that income earns?…

Under income tax, basically you are taxed on what you take in, regardless of what you do with it (with certain deductions and exemptions.) So in my example, the guy who gets $5mil, in principle includes it all in "gross income" subject to tax. Capital gains are one type of income, so a.) if any of the $5mil is capital gains, it is included in income when he gets it and taxed at the rate on capital gains, and
b.) if any of the $4mil he invests produces capital gains he pays on that additional income when he takes the gains.
Other income, such as dividends or interest earned by the investment would be taxable as it becomes available. When he takes out the original $4mil he invested, it is not taxed, because it was already taxed when he got it. So everything he gets is subject to tax when he gets it.

With the sales tax, you are not taxed on what you take in, and as long as you can avoid spending it on something taxable in the U.S., you pay no tax on it.

Yes, doctork, it is only a tiny percentage of the population who retire abroad, but most of them are precisely the people we should not be letting off the hook. It was wrong for the Democrats to characterize overall rate reductions as "tax cuts for the wealthy." It would be far more accurate, IMO, to apply the label to replacing income tax with sales tax.

[rogesgallery]

Yikes The Wicked Witch of Cornell is at the top of the page!

I'll put my money on Hillary by the nose, and Obama; opportunistically, coming up from behind.

[doctork]

gailkate said:

Within reason, I accept the concept of earning on investment. But Kristin, you of all people know that the corporatocrats (what a mouthful - maybe we'd better say plutocrats) are reaping far more than they deserve. The question of "deserving" is endlessly debatable. I like Bill Gates's take on that - he owes his wealth to the myriad opportunities this country offers.

I don't think the rich "let" us use their money. They make it or inherit it from the labor of all who do the work. We let them profit. The more they have, the more they acquire - land, transportation, natural resorces.

There's something wrong in any human community that lets wealth measure worth. We know the gulf between rich and poor is growing deeper, wider and more impossible to bridge. I see it as a moral wrong.

I'm not so socialistic as to think it is wrong to have wealthy people and people of modest means. I do think we should met the basic necessities of all - food, shelter, education, healthcare. A capitalist society does inherently tend to measure worth by wealth, though many recognize that the true definition of worth is much broader.

Historically the US has done an unusually good job of offering opportunity to all. Much more than most countries, our individual destiny is determined by how hard we work, rather than by the family and location of our birth. Over the past 30 years or so, I think that has changed, and we are experiencing the widening gap between rich and poor.

The reasons are complex, but I think that "flattening" of the world, and our development into a knowledge and service based economy are major factors. More jobs require higher education, for which not all are suited, and there are fewer manufacturing jobs which pay "family wages."

I think that highly paid (too high in some cases) corporate executives are different from the corporatocracy problem, though there is certainly overlap. There is no excuse for corporate execs getting huge salaries for doing a rotten job and shortchanging the shareholders while lining the pockets, and that is the fault of poor oversight by their boards of directors, and lax regulation by the relevant government authorities. But I suspect most of them pay the appropriate taxes on their inflated salaries, and still have plenty left over.

The corporatocracy is a problem because former key government employees/leaders/cabinet members/military officers take key positions in private companies and then use their connections to get sweetheart government contracts with excessive profits. They influence government actions in order to further this process, in a way that is deleterious to our citizens (keeping us in endless wars, bankrupting third world nations) and citizens of other nations, using our tax dollars to ensure themselves immense wealth. I'm sure that Dick Cheney (former CEO of Halliburton) and Erik Prince (CEO of Blackwater and Mark Penn (currently serving in the Clinton campaign, but also CEO of a PR firm which receives lucrative government contracts) pay the proper taxes on their ill-gotten gains, because the deal is to get more such gains, not evade taxes on them and draw attention.

I don't have a problem with the wealthy passing it on to their children (after paying their inheritance taxes). Nor do I resent them honestly earning large amounts for their hard work and innovative ideas, even though I might wish I had had such an idea or chosen such a profession. I'd rather have a little envy than live in a country where such an opportunity did not exist.

The Wall Street Journal says that the top-earning 1% of the population pays 40% of all income taxes, which is substantial. If a substantial portion of that is "missing" because of some retiring overseas, perhaps further tax reform is needed. But I wonder just what the $$ amount is for the missing taxes. I'd have thought they either spend it and pay taxes, or bequeath to their heirs who pay taxes. And is it not the case that US tax rates are relatively low in comparison to other industrialized nations?

[rogesgallery]

Wow! I have really missed this intelligent discourse. I think I might cry... scuse me................................................................................

There; I'm better. I was just worried it would be a long lonely winter. Now...If I'm still welcome here:

You're probably all familiar with Ayn Rands book "Capitalism the Unknown Ideal" and Marx's "Communist Manifesto". Both were incredibly intelligent forward thinkers – they both theorized the inevitable limits to capitalistic economics as a social system, but Ayn's view point had the advantage of a century of laissez-faire Capitalist practice and it's current progeny which – if my memory serves me – she called crippled capitalism.

There is nothing theoretically wrong with socialism in my opinion. I think in the case of the Soviet Union It was implemented to soon. It's proponents misread the European wars and the Russian revolution of the early 20th century as the middle class uprising Marx had predicted would cause the breakdown of Capitalism. The aftermath of nearly 40 years of the most violent and destructive wars in history was not the best time to implement a new and expensive social system. Not to mention the necessarily evil nature of the leadership which arose out of those violent times. It gave socialism a bad reputation.

Personally I believe that a resource crisis will be the end of capitalism. That breakdown is already well underway with the necessary increasing government intervention in economics. The current system has bred a new class of pirates of the marketplace who are more than willing to put a price tag on endangered primary resources – not out of evil intent but born of economic near sightedness, blind ambition, and social astigmatism. (Those corprotocrats Gail was choking on)

Joe – Your reference to the equality of taxation may be true on the collection level but if you consider how those taxes are invested and re-distributed that equity falls apart. Not just tax breaks but inflated government contracts, low interest loans, trade in tariff protected countries, research and study grants. My brother in law got a tax break on a new Chevy Excursion – enough to make the cost of the vehicle insignificant – over half the first year salary of a teacher in WA state. Then there are energy tax breaks such as additives that make coal burn slower (water). I'm sure there are a lot of corporate benefits I'm not aware of. All of this is in direct conflict with the principle of capitalism and, it seems, strong evidence that the predictions that capitalism will naturally evolve toward socialism.


Canada Doc? ...Cool!

[rogesgallery]

doctork said:

And is it not the case that US tax rates are relatively low in comparison to other industrialized nations?

If you were to add up the services that other nations provide free to their citizens (health care – higher education) which we pay for, we pay far more in taxes. I read a comparison last year that stated that the 3 trillion we pay in health care alone would put our tax rate beyond Britain which is the highest taxed country.

[gailkate]

Roges, you're cooking out there on the west coast when a lot of us have hit the sack. I'm going to need time to think about all you and K have said, but I'm loving the theorizing, too.

Another complication in the mix. Remember Plato's "Benevolent Dictator"? Chavez the socialist has tried to blend the two. Putin just seems to want to be king. All very convoluted.

[doctork]

I think you are correct about the resources limiting unfettered growth of capitalism Roges. "The West" has serious and rapidly rising competition with India and China for oil, for example. Interestingly, the growth there is fueled by a growing middle class and increased opportunities for capitalist endeavors. Of course, it is possible/likely that innovation will lead to new and more efficient energy sources. Funds for such innovation would be likely to originate from capitalists...

We've already had one round of reining in the robber barons, and that should happen again. Will it be in the form of a revolting middle class? Or perhaps the election of more moderate leadership that is willing to impose some reasonable restrictions on the corporatocracy and the robber barons.

As for the true cost of "low taxes," I've looked at my own situation regarding a move to Canada, and it would be at least a wash, if not a positive, for us to move there. So your article sources are probably accurate.

But I'm pretty patriotic, and have expended a lot of energy working for positive changes here in the US, so the decision to become an ex-pat is not taken lightly.

[rogesgallery]

I have to say that I have been slow to respond to the candidates this time. It looks so suspiciously like each side has divvied up the party line issues and and crossed their fingers in the hope that two opposing issues will rise to the top – not to mention the bits and pieces of the billion dollar price tag I am still coughing up.

I hate to admit it but I am sorely tempted to just wait and pick the winner. It's hard to keep my interest up when I keep on picking a loser. I feel like a Seahawks fan!

I'm sure the winner will be a Democrat, considering the Republican party's current identity crisis. I might consider voting for a Republican bound for the loser's toilet if one was to emerge bold enough to stand up and say to the public: "Don't put the blame for Iraq all on us. You the people supported it so don't think you can divorce yourself from the responsibility like you would a worn out wife. You can blame us for playing to much golf..." That might take him to the top of the republican heap but it wouldn't put him over the top. Americans can suffer silent self recrimination but open criticism, thems fightin words.

[doctork]

Roges, look at Ron Paul, a Republican "dark horse" who is on a remarkable fund raising roll. Though a ten term Congressman, he does not accept his government salary, and has been very consistent for decades in his enthusiasm for strict Constitutionalism. He has opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and is the only candidate who unequivalently supports removal of our troops from Iraq.

I used to think he was "too radical," but at this point I think radical change in leadership is required, because incrementalism has kept us stagnated for years.

IMHO, the Dems could easily lose if they nominate Clinton, with her high negatives and connotations of same-old same-old. Especially if an "affable" and reasonable sounding candidate such as Huckabee is the Republican nominee.

But maybe a surprise third party (Paul as a Libertarian, Bloomberg as whatever) could draw away enough (R) votes to give the Dems a slim victory.

Too early to tell yet, all bets are off.

[joew]

What I see as the benefit of Ron Paul's candidacy is that it puts the strict constitutionalist principles out in public view. Gaining a hearing for them and respectability makes it easier for others in public office to act in accord with those principles of federalism and limited government.

[gailkate]

Do you really think Paul is getting much public attention? I think he's still way back in the pack as far as the media are concerned. And Huckabee is getting some negative attention over his registering for wedding gifts 30 years or so after the ceremony. I was really feeling positive toward him, despite how much I disagree with him. But that kind of shameless panhandling is embarrassing. Huckster Huckabee, the Baptist preacher. Pee-yoo.

[joew]

Maybe it seems as if he's getting more attention than he really is, and what he is getting is probably more for his position on Iraq than for he position on Constitutional government (sigh).

Hadn't heard of the 30th anniversary wedding registry. That's weird.

[doctork]

Regarding Ron Paul, $12 million in one quarter (more than any candidate besides Senator Clinton) is definitely a lot of attention. It just is not coming from the traditional media, wonks, and surveys. The shift to internet as a main form of communication, and the large number of folks who no longer have landlines, just cell (they aren't reached by phone surveys of "likely voters"), have changed the picture. And we could all use a refresher course on the details, or even the big picture, of the Constitution.

I am withholding judgment on the wedding registry issue, as it smacks of dirty politics, and I don't know what the full story is. If this is actually hucksterism on Gov Huckabee's part, I will be very surprised, and quite disappointed. But once someone reaches significance on the radar screen, then the research is done and the mudslinging begins, some of which is unjustified.

I have decided that John McCain is all right, and that his slip on the bi*ch question is not a major disqualifier as to his character after all, IMHO. I admire his general plain spokenness, and his firm and credible anti-torture stance.

On the other side, I still like Bill Richardson and Barack Obama, and I will not vote for Senator Clinton under any circumstances.

[gailkate]

The wedding registry thing was reported by an Ark. paper that is admittedly liberal. But NPR did an interview with the editor and it did sound really slippery. Because he couldn't accept gifts as gov, he registered with a dept. store for wedding gifts - since they hadn't registered when they actually got married, it was okey-doke to do it a few decades later.

Some have argued he didn't know any beter because it's common for church members to give presents and assistance to their underpaid pastors. But he certainly knew he was bending the law. It just doesn't have the right ring for a man who uses his credentials as a man of God. (Cripes, he's no better than Clinton, and Clinton never claimed to be anything but a sinner.)

I think Paul's money-raising is impressive, too, but it's not getting him the press he should be getting. He can build a following on the Internet (just as Dean did) and not have momentum on a broad scale.