Knott bangs on Baron OR why is Baron Hill such a fan of onerous payroll taxes on the working poor?!
Greg will carry the Libertarian banner in the 9th District this year against Todd Young and Baron Hill. Here, he gets a nice article from Daniel Suddeath in the Jeff/NA News-Tribune...
The Libertarian candidate for Indiana’s 9th District U.S. House seat accused incumbent Rep. Baron Hill of misrepresenting the so-called Fair Tax in comments he made Wednesday.
Following the Republican selection of Bloomington attorney Todd Young as the GOP nomination for the 9th seat, Hill, a Democrat, accused Young of “promoting extremist and economically-detrimental ideas like supporting a 23 percent national sales tax on goods and services”.
In a statement released Friday, Libertarian Greg Knott said the “fair tax is more progressive than the current tax scheme because it eliminates payroll taxes, which hits the working poor the hardest.”
The “fair tax” is essentially meant to take the place of all federal income taxes. The tax would be imposed once on the purchaser of a good or service.
I think I'd rather have a flat tax than the "fair tax", but it would certainly be an improvement.
Baron's doing his usual thing: only talk about the benefits of policies you support and the costs of policies you oppose.
So, turning the coin to the other side, it'd be interesting to know why Baron supports onerous and regressive payroll taxes on the working poor-- to fund an unjust system like the status quo in Social Security.
Suddeath closes with a fine pun:
Knott refers to himself as the “no bull” candidate, but it remains to be seen if the Libertarian’s beef with Hill will be enough to have a tangible impact on the November general election....
I look forward to six months of Greg Knott making good points!
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 7:43 AM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Personally, my chief concern with all of the alternative tax plans (fair, VAT, flat, etc..) is that you would be giving the government more sources of revenue. For example, Paul Ryen makes an eloquent argument for a "reasonable" path to perpetual sustainability for SS/Medicare/etc...by using "low" versions of multiple tax streams, but I think he's being naive to think that any congress will restrain spending given multiple tax streams that they can increase.
the only way any other tax system would be acceptable, in my view, would be to permanently repeal income tax at the same time. your thoughts?
The "fair tax" as proposed would replace "income" taxes and payroll taxes on income, so you'd be trading taxes. The flat tax would flatten the current "income" tax system. So, your concern is valid only on the VAT-- and there are other concerns beyond that with a VAT.
There are reasons to worry about the implementation of the "fair tax", especially when it's at a relatively high rate. But I think I've posted on that previously.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home