Huckabee the fake populist?

Huckabee is not perfect. I don't see much that separates his foriegn policy from other republicans. As for economics, it's at least refreshing to hear a republican talk any populist economics at all. Also I believe his belief in parole and clemency actually make him somewhat progressive in that area

I don't know why, but my server will never permit me to go to Larison's site. I'll just go with what Rod has given us.

but he apparently thinks the answer is to elect him so that working Americans will feel better about their President (he will remind them of their co-workers!), as if that will alleviate their real ills.

I'll admit that Huckabee's commercials can give you a case of the warm fuzzies. He comes across as being a really nice and honorable man.

I don't think that working Americans are going to go for his Fair Tax. This is what he says about it on his own web site:

But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment.

Working Americans, especially those entering retirement age, start to get a little nervous when politicians start messing around with SS and Medicare. Bush received little support when he wanted to change it.

I'm trying to imagine the amount that our government would have to tax our purchases if all of these other taxes were eliminated. Notice that he doesn't say that he wants to eliminate governmental services, but just draw the money in a different way.

I'm trying to figure out why Huckabee thinks that people who buy merchandise should have to pay more taxes for governmental services than people who don't. He says that people who are at the poverty level won't have to pay any taxes. Well, that's great. Let's forget about all of the paperwork that these poor people will need to submit to be reimbursed, and just think about how the working man(probably, not at the poverty level)is going to look at this.

Basically, it's going to hit the middle class the hardest because they'll be taxed at the same rate every time they go to the store as the millionaires who chooses not to do his/her share by spending his/her money on "stuff." In other words, the millionaire who spends most of his money on food and non-designer clothing and mortgage payments will be giving the government the same amount of money as the man who makes 30K/yr buying the same stuff.

Huckabee's got a lot of explaining to do, and he better start doing in a way that the working man will understand if he wants to elected the populist prez. Touchy, feely, Christmas ads and "I feel for you" ads aren't going to cut it when the Democrats narrow in on one candidate.

>>I'm trying to imagine the amount that our government would have to tax our purchases if all of these other taxes were eliminated.
Posted by: watsy | January 17, 2008 10:16 AM
>>

The Fair Tax people say low 30%, other analysts think closer to 50%.

BTW, just imagine what will happen to the housing market with a 30% tax premium...

Good A costs $1. Add a 30% consumption tax, you have $1.30. The 'fair tax' however is a percent of gross, not a surcharge. Therefore .30 / $1.30 is 23% and voila, you have a '23%' fair tax. This is what Huckabee is proposing.

The putative advantage of such a system would be that there would be fewer beneits to lobbying. However companies lobby just as much in regard to regulation as they do 'tax loopholes'. 'Tax loopholes' are a largely immaginary monster that is supposed to explain why everyone's taxes are so high. It is related to the other largely imaginary monster "wasteful spending."

As Mr. Cosimano points out, this is as likely to make it through Congress as heavy fur coats are likely to become trendy in Miami. However his proposal does have note his deep aversions to taxing corporations or the wealthy. In his recent talks about stimulus packages on NPR, he spouted nonsense about reducing corporate taxes and regulation. He's a populist in name only.

Actually no John. As a percentage of income, the poor approach 100% consumption. Their relative income tax would be 30%. High income earners spend say 60% of their income on consumption. We'll ignore for the moment that a large portion of wealthy people's income is not labor. Their effective income tax is 18% then. The prebate, or the welfare payment as it should be called, will reduce the burden for the poor and not really change the middle class and rich. Those hardest hit would be the middle class. Once you get into 2nd order calculations, the poor also take some lumps.