Nosey Online

Actually, I agree that this is a somewhat far-fetched idea. I would go so far as to support Bush if I thought it was serious. If I think it's an election-year bone that will be pulled like a gag once he's elected, I will make him pay whatever price I can as a voter for doing it.

I think there are a lot of long-term strategic reasons for pursuing something like this, though.

We'll see. In the meantime, the important thing to remember is that a sales/VA tax is neither a Magical Cure for our tax problems, nor a Terrible Idea. It has costs and benefits, and anybody who paints it as all Good or all Bad is shilling.

I enjoy the moments when you and I are in complete agreement, Jon, even if they're few and far between ;)

Y'know, I think the main value in blogging--for me, anyway--is to discover that arguments - real, serious arguments - occur in the margins, rather than in absolutes....and to propogate that idea.

It would be a better world if we argued in the margins.

I dont know too much about the ins and outs of tax policy. I know the tax code needs to be overhauled. I also know that it doesn't matter if this idea is good or bad. You were absolutely right to compare it to the Mars roadtrip because this is the idea they're floating in response to the spectacular failure that was the Mars idea. This one avoids all the boneheaded mistakes that one made - it's super easy to communicate: Abolish the Revenuers! and it involves something that every American who votes cares about - or thinks they care about - taxes. It doesn't matter if it gets explained or understood. Team BushCo doesn't care about that. They just want the hook in. And this is a very very big hook. Kerry had his chance to do the same with his energy policy and he blew it. If BushCo decides to go down this path, Kerry will be campaigning as the Pro-IRS candidate.

If BushCo decides to go down this path, Kerry will be campaigning as the Pro-IRS candidate.

And that, eRobin, would the the downfall of Kerry. It's a brilliant move if Bush decides to go with it. It would ensure victory without having to deliver on it.

Jon,

One of the best things to come out of blogging for me has been the ability to hear the other side of a debate without having to go through any big media (Which Rush, Hannity, etc. is a part of, whether they want to admit it or not).

That's my point Sean. It's been my point since I sat through Kerry's acceptance speech waiting for a Big Idea to inspire America and got nothing (except for the health care ideas; I liked those, but they weren't exactly inspiring) I'm terrified that BushCo will run with this. As I posted, we dodged a bullet when they thought that Mars was the Big Idea. This one, as cynical as it is, will be impossible to fight. I hope I'm wrong.

Also, I read the fairtax site you linked to and some of the rebuttal they linked to. Consumption tax doesn't sound good to me but as I said, I'm not a tax expert. Have you read The 2% Solution? I'm interested in what that guy has to say.

eRobin,

What 2% solution are you talking about. I might have missed it. My brain is still fuzzy from a weekend wedding I went to.

One more thing - you said that this would be a brilliant move for Kerry. I'm not willing to concede that this idea to fool America three months before the election is brilliant. It's cynical and reprehensible. It's not that Rove is brilliant; it's that the rest of them are so damn dumb.

Gosh, Kerry should do something fast with his energy policy and call for 75% independence from foreign oil by 20XX and make renewable energy the new space race before Bush can roll this tax thing out. Now, if I can think of that - a dope from nowhere - why can't his people, who are professionals? No guts - they've got no guts at all.

The 2% Solution by Matthew Miller.

From Amazon: Miller counts off the grim statistics of American society's most intractable problems: "40 million uninsured; 15 million working poor; 10 million poor kids in failing schools." Soon, making these costs seem trivial, baby boomers will retire. And the political system, distorted by money and special interests, refuses to seriously address these issues. Miller, a radio commentator and syndicated columnist, has a plan. With an increase of government spending of 2% of GDP, we can solve all these problems, but it will require "grand bargains" between the parties, with Democrats agreeing to accept market-oriented programs if Republicans will generously fund them. For instance, Miller says many Republicans would support universal health coverage if Democrats would allow a plan relying on tax subsidies to cover private insurance policies. Based on similar principles, Miller crafts Solomonic proposals to raise teacher pay, experiment with school vouchers, subsidize a living wage for poor workers, publicly finance elections, slow the growth rate of Social Security and Medicare expenses, and offset the costs of the new initiatives. Though he calls it "ideologically androgynous," Miller's agenda resembles the New Democrat platform and will be a harder sell to the committed tax cutters of the GOP. Miller has pitched his "Two Percent Solution" to dozens of influential policymakers across the political spectrum. The cautiously favorable reactions he reports from these encounters and from focus groups and polling commissioned for the book are the most convincing evidence of the plausibility of his vision. Sadly, sensible compromise still seems unlikely, but Miller's unflappable salesmanship is irresistible.

One more thing - you said that this would be a brilliant move for Kerry.

You mean Bush, not Kerry, right? I meant it would be a brilliant move for Bush, i.e. electoral strategy. Just because I said brilliant doesn't mean I think "good". I'll check that book out from the library this weekend.

Yes - Bush - sorry. Kerry's team seems incapable of brilliance - for good or evil.

Very true.

ERobin: "I dont know too much about the ins and outs of tax policy" and "It doesn't matter if it gets explained or understood."

- - -I don't get it. You write that you don't understand "the ins and outs", and then write that Bush is trying to "trick" people who don't think about it.

If you don't understand it, why are you sure it's a "trick"? That's not to say it's a perfect solution with nothing but goodness and light on the other end....but neither is our current system. The question is what the opportunity cost is.

Ahh, opportunity costs. Recently covered in my Managerial Accounting class.

Sean, if I could have people understand one concept in the world, it would be "opportunity cost". Opportunity cost and marginal utility. TWO concepts. If I could have people understand two concepts, they would be...(nobody expect...!)

Well, you get the idea.

As far as "philosophies" go, I find economics to be the most interesting and applicable to life.

Btw, if you're interested in solid textbook economics, check out "The Economic Way of Thinking". And I do mean "textbook", because it's a college textbook....but fascinating in the way it makes you view the world.

I don't see how this could be a good idea. First off there is no mention of getting rid of the current sales taxes that are already in place by states and cities. I live in Chicago and already pay 8.75%, I'm going to have to pay another 4%-5%(maybe-there were no figures in that link) on things I buy. I understand things may cost less, but I also understand that corporations/companies are in business to make money. There is no incentive to lower their prices when that 20-30% can be kept as additional revenue and profit, but more then likely they will say they need to pay the "FairTax" and won't lower prices. Also secondly that link states a 25% non-compliance with the current code. That number would certainly rise and not in the technical sense of non-compliance. If one were inclined to do so they could pay little to no tax at all. All one would have to do is buy used goods. And there are thousands of stores that cater to this, everything from used furniture,appliances, and cars down to used clothes, music and books. If you had a choice between paying taxes and not, most people obviously would choose not too. This system would give people that choice. And thirdly this would almost certainly increase illegal activity as goods would be smuggled into the country and black market stores set up shop where you could pay no tax. If you have trouble believing that, take a look at the '20s and Prohibition, there would be definite parallels.