♥ Huckabee for President. Mind, Not So Much.
So Huckabee and Obama have won the primaries and if nothing else this shows that Americans care about what kind of a person you are rather than how much money you can raise, how politically astute you can be or how you can dodge the issues. From the day I was exposed to Huckabee in 2006, listening to him talk about the health challenges in America and what he has personally done to lead, I was impressed.
I found him real, charming, articulate, honest and a do-er. The fact that he is not from New York-California (or as AT&T would call it, New Yorkifornia), makes him more real in some ways with a feel for what life is like for millions of Americans.
I liked him enough to check out his website to see where he stands on issues. That's where I was a little taken aback. Here are some of his stands:
- Replace all taxes with "FairTax": The name Fair Tax notwithstanding the proposed tax would essentially be a national sales tax. The unintended (or unseen) consequences of this could include consumers buying more second-hand goods or even conducting transactions in tax without reporting them. A simple taxation system could also mean its simpler to avoid taxation. The incentive to cheat would be much higher given that the proposed fair sales tax would be around 20%+. I am all for reforming the tax code but any time a huge change like this is proposed I am worried about unintended consequences. For example, the rich could spend more of their time and money in foreign countries while earning in the US. Take your (much maligned) hedge fund trader who could do his job in London as well as in New York and compare that to the Wal-Mart clerk. Doesn't seem fair to me!
- Immigration: He wants to crack down hard on illegal immigrants and employers. Although, I agree that enforcement of laws needs to be strengthened there seems to be very little emphasis on immigration reform. By way of example, he wants to eliminate the visa category for brothers and sisters of citizens - I don't understand why this is a key issue. After all, does pro-family stop at the border? He does propose to increase the visas for highly skilled and highly educated immigrants - I support this increase but few highly skilled and highly educated immigrants want to live in a country that doesn't let their spouse, siblings or parents in. Germany tried a restrictive program to attract top talent from countries like India and the program was a failure.
- Marriage and Sanctity of Life: Huckabee wants to define marriage. As a union of man and a woman. I am relieved. I guess this is a huge problem. Why bother with real issues like poverty, climate change or disease when you can define marriage.
5 comments:
Take another look at Obama. No candidate is perfect, but I honestly believe he's a great choice for America.
Ian,
Thanks for your comment. I would have liked for you to address the concerns I raise, namely: How will you prevent tax fraud when it would be easy to circumvent this tax by creating an underground economy? Income Tax and Dividend Tax are easier to collect. Also, how do you prevent the citizens from shifting their purchasing of goods and services to foreign locations?
Even if Fair Tax is workable I would find it more responsible (and less risky) to move to it over 10 years or so.
Hi Anshu,
Simply put - there will likely be less fraud because it will be easier to catch. Unlike today's system where it's practically a game if you can afford it.
It's doubtful if a second non-taxable economy came up because the primary one will be easier to use and lead to more wealth.
Plus even if a 2nd one sprang up with cheaper prices and met people's needs - um, why would that be a bad thing?
Third - if a person can afford to live in UK and earn money by working remotely for a job in NYC. While buying stuff in France. Why should we punish that talented person by forcing taxes on them? My guess is that person through their consumption - would be pouring more money in through purchases of goods & services to more than amply cover any taxes they might be avoiding.
I mean when you consider Britney Spears contributes $100 million to the US economy (saw that today in Dallas Morning News but I think it's a wire story) via her various "products" (music, perfume, tabloids, photogs) - it's much more efficient than hoping a govt would take some percentage of that & do something useful with it.
Mark: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I am not so sure the proposed tax is really fair. Consider this - if people that live near the borders (Canadian or Mexican) decide to live and spend most of their money in Canada/Mexico, and continue to hold jobs in USA - using roads, enjoying the security provided by the government etc. then they are getting services they no longer pay for.
I would be more supportive if the taxation was part consumption and part income based.
But I do see that several of us just want a simpler system that works. The current system is definitely broken.
I guess it should be called "Mostly Fair Tax" but that doesn't quite have the same ring to it :).
I think the worry about people using resources without paying for it - is not likely.
Remember - everything you buy - will have the tax applied to it. So your rent/mortgage, car, etc will have the tax applied to it. So while I'm sure it would be possible to do what you say - that would require a bigger change in our current border policies anyway :). We are after all the only developed country to see decline in immigration and tourism since 9/11. And that's even amid the current dollar downturn. And IMHO - that's a bigger worry than Al-Queda (AQ/terror is a threat but pales into what we're facing with imminent retirement of a significant portion of our work-force).
Another way to solve the problem you mention (e.g. use roads) is to apply tolls. That's much more equitable system and if we can merge tolls with modern economics - we'd actually improve things. For example - imagine on the 101 that instead of the silly HOV lane (silly being that so few people can actually car pool) - that lane was reserved for a high toll (e.g. $5 per booth). The benefit is that those who would want to pay for that luxury - would use it. And it could help offset the cheaper lane which could be sold at a loss (or even free).
Or you look into some type of system where you encourage private enterprise develop the roadway as part of another package. That is the roadway is paid for by a shopping mall investor - who uses it as a way to get people to more easily get to their mall.
I know that one sounds far-fetched but that's because it's never been done. But I agree with Amory Levins (the smartest guy when it comes to oil) - if we made real-estate developers have to pony up more cash for the infrastructure we'd probably see more innovative & cost-effective solutions.
Remember - anytime the govt. builds something - it's a monopoly project. Not saying that's necessarily bad in its own right but over long run we know competition makes things better.
Post a Comment