Shafer on Rudy

Rudy doesn’t like the fair tax and seems to think it is complicated. I think Rudy is self-interested in avoiding the fair tax because so many of his NYC friends are generally rich enough to not have to worry about the income tax, they’d get socked by a consumption tax — the price of caviar gets more expensive with a consumption tax.

Anyway, Senator Shafer wants to know how Rudy could have read the Boortz book and still be so confused and confounded by the Fair Tax.

I hear Fred! likes the Fair Tax. The information is dubious as to Fred’s position.

17 comments

  1. IndyInjun says:

    I hear that Fred responded postively, but impulsively, to a Fair???taxer’s question on whether he would support passage. The Fair????taxers even have it on video.

    Subsequently, his “campaign” disavowed his on-tape endorsement, prompting very deserved charges of a flip-flop.

    Fred’s advisors, like those of Rudy and Mitt, know that if Fred endorses this nutty scheme his campaign will go up in flames, like the Hindenburg.

    The Fair????tax has a cult-like minority following, especially here in GA, but the broader public wants no part of it.

  2. Doug Deal says:

    I used to like the fair tax, and still like much of it on a theoretical basis; it is the practical problems that would arise that make me somewhat hesitant.

    Sadly, there is no way to phase it in, as it would simply mean that it becomes an additional tax and the income tax will somehow never manage to go away. The shift shock could really have some rather large short term negatives that may make it fail in the long run, for no other reason than people not seeing over the next horizon.

    Rudy is right in some ways, it is complicated. Boortz, Linder et al are fooling themselves and others when they focus just on the simplicity of the end goal. The path to get to that point is the problem.

    I think a lot of the problems are palatable for no other reason than the government has to retreat further from our personal lives. But step one is realize that there will be problems. Boorts, Linder (and Fred!?) are in denial.

  3. IndyInjun says:

    Aha, it was then cross-talk and not double talk.

    Revision duly noted…

    After the “MAX TAX” adds, that even I felt were misleading, Burns beat a retreat.

    After Inez Tennenbaum in SC jumped Jim DeMint with similar ads in 2004, he disavowed it and subsequently started pushing a national sales tax like the state sales tax that seems to be so “popular” – one with a very broad base an low rates.

    Even Paul Broun, who campaigned on it, as did Whitehead, really disavowed the HR 25 Fair????tax by pushing it with an 11% rate. An 11% rate AIN’T the “Fairtax” as proposed by Linder and introduced as real legislation.

    When it comes down to it during the heat of a campaign, no candidate will run on this nutty deal.

  4. Mike Hauncho says:

    The Atlanta Young Republicans held a forum last month in which a spokesperson for Rudy, Romney, Paul, and Thompson attended and fielded some questions. I know the Thompson rep had to speak on what his understanding of Thompson’s positions was but he did say one thing that surprised a few people. When asked if Thompson supports the Fair Tax he responded that Thompson was going to come out with his own plan. I dont know how much time Thompson has spent on the tax issue but I doubt it was enough to come out with anything that would change the current system enought to make a difference.

  5. IndyInjun says:

    As I have posted before, any scheme that provides immediate tax forgiveness on Big Oil of more than $40 billion, while putting a combined (state and federal) tax of 40% on Grandma’s nursing home care is a Jim Jones tonic that no politician will knowingly drink.

  6. gatormathis says:

    And like all taxes, they are “Fair”, until you see how they fall.

    Europe is heavy into these type taxes, and when you talk to them about their taxes, it is amazing how high the rates have gotten since being implemented.

    A friend of mine in Denmark talks of taxes on cars and such at unbeleivable rates.

    But they have “free” healthcare. So how do you tax “free” healthcare in the service area, if you don’t charge for it?

    As with all things, be careful what you ask for, you might just get it……….

  7. ChuckEaton says:

    We’ve reached the “perfect storm” when it comes to populist Big Oil rhetoric: high fuel prices combined with the Democrat’s Presidential Primary. It makes no sense to raise the oil companies’ costs during a time of high fuel prices.

    Are there actually people who believe that “windfall” taxes, etc.. wouldn’t get passed onto the consumer?

  8. IndyInjun says:

    Chuck Eaton – The recent idiotic punitive tax the ‘populist’ Dems passed on Big Oil is separate and distinct from the tax forgiveness on past income that Big Oil receives as a direct consequence of the Fair????tax.

    I agree with you that it makes no sense to raise their costs during a time of already high prices.

    Neither does it make any sense for the people to pay combined sales tax rates of around 40% on $3 to $5 gasoline.

    Oh well, maybe I am a populist….just not of the Dem variety!

  9. CobbGOPer says:

    “Europe is heavy into these type taxes…”

    Um, well, not in the way you think. Yes, they have consumption taxes like the Fair Tax, but that’s on top of oppressive income taxes. They just get taxed for everything, period, because they have to support their “universal healthcare” as Shrillary puts it.

    “Big Oil” – Indy, you sound more and more like a normal, non-independant socialist every day. Why not just come out and say it?

    And be on the lookout for Boortz and Linder’s next book, it’s going to be a response (with citations!) to all the critical arguments against the Fair Tax. I’m sure your points will be addressed there.

    Of course, it won’t matter to you. I wonder sometimes if you’re actually a lobbyist.

  10. IndyInjun says:

    CobbGOPr- I voted for every GOP POTUS since Nixon, the current WORST POTUS IN USA HISTORY included.

    I quit backing down from party hacks like you a while back.

    Show me where the Fair????tax has ever been adopted as part of the GOP platform before branding me as a ‘socialist.’

    At the end of 2004, per SEC Form 10-K, Exxon Mobil, Connoco-Phillips, and Chevron-Texaco had a combined $40 billion in deferred income taxes on their books. This looks like a pretty good gift to me. The recipients are, in fact, Big Oil. Look it up.

    It also sets a record for return on funding a lobbying group as Shell Oil and Enron were among the financiers of the Fair???? tax org. Said funds were used to ‘fund’ the ‘expert economists’ who concocted the fantasy that this nutty scheme might work. Look it up.

    I don’t worry about Boortz and Linder, especially Linder. Their little scheme is built on the work of prostitutes. Linder has since voted for the massive Medicare D that blows apart the assumptions upon which the Fair???tax rate is based. Look it up.

    Only a few brain dead Georgia politicians who have had no meaningful opposition dare run on it.

    As for personal benefit, I tend to look ahead and have figured out ways to really capitalize if the Fair???tax ever passes. I tend to look ahead. If only the politicians did the same…..

    And I am looking forward to Boortz’s reply which is about as long in coming as the end of the last throes of the Iraq insurgency.

  11. Icarus says:

    A bit off topic, but related to the comments, I’ve actually got a thread going today at redstate regarding Newt’s charge that our war on terror is a “phony”, and that we must quit our addiction to foreign oil if we seriously want to fight terrorism.

    As I’ve stated here before, I would support higher gas taxes to curb demand for oil. The reaction to that from the RedStaters isn’t nearly as negative as I would have predicted.

    http://www.redstate.com/blogs/icarus/2007/aug/05/terror_at_the_pump

  12. IndyInjun says:

    Icarus,

    I agree, but……

    The ultimate problem with artificially raising US gasoline prices is found in “free trade.” Nothing else carries as high an energy content per unit and per $ of cost as oil.

    If we drive the cost up for US consumers and industry, we put our nation at a crippling cost disadvantage to our competitors on top of a harmful labor cost differential and the subsidy we pay for their defense.

    In times past the response would be to raise tariffs. Those are forbidden under the free trade religion.

    Something has to give and will.

    As for the Fair???tax as a vehicle to achieve the higher tax goal, the trouble is that it applies to OTHER costs that are exploding faster than wages, upon which the current system is based.

  13. Icarus says:

    Indy,

    If we keep trying to agree with each other, Bill Simon is going to charge one of us with taking bribes.

    The imbedded cost of oil within the economy is still high, but not nearly as high as the cost was during the 70’s.

    The risk of doing nothing is to leave us hostage to those who want to kill us, while sending them the money to buy the bullets. Phasing in a meaningful increase in the gas tax over a long period of time (5-10 years) would telegraph to both consumers and producers that conservation and efficiency must take greater importance in all decision making.

  14. IndyInjun says:

    DK – Fred knows that they have the same initials in common with Fairy Tale.

    Icarus – Don’t worry. Agreeing me does not seem to be habit-forming, as Bill Simon would likely point out.

    Besides, someone would soon demand that my Indy credentials be lifted.

Comments are closed.