Don't lie. You know Mike Gravel is all we ever dreamed of and more we ever hoped for.

[Exultant Democracy]

Many of us liked what we heard last night and his words were enough to make many of us cheer, but this guys isn't just words he is the real deal. He lead a five month filibuster to end the draft, that means that he is the reason that I am not in Iraq right now.

According to Wikipedia "At the end of March 2007, his campaign had less than $500 in cash on hand against debts of nearly $90,000." I thought that is Mike Gravel can go 90k in the hole then I can send him $50. So I don't go out this weekend I am going to have a lot more fun watching him in the next debate. After 6 years of terrible lies hearing the total truth is a tonic for the heart soul and mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Gravel

http://www.gravel2008.us/

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. The only thing that stops me in my tracks is his flat tax idea

and until I claer in my mind exactly what he means....

[Exultant Democracy]

2. It isn't a Forbes flat tax, it is a progressive sales tax called the fair tax

http://www.gravel2008.us/fair_tax

I have to admit I don't know enough about it yet either. It is clearly progressive but I am not sure if it is economically sound in an international economy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

I've read it

and it reads and acts like an added value tax...

Now his idea is not that bad except that he adds paperwork by the prebate and the VAT is not progressive, is quite regressive unless you get a basic baked of goods that ARE NOt, I repeat, ARE NOT taxed

Be honest now, you think that somebody living on the edge will remember to sign up for the program every year?

I will use a real world example... our neighbors to the south

They have a VAT and they have exceptions, such as medicines and 100 goods and services (such as tortillas) that are tax except

Now, in theory the system works very well, in practice it does not. Now Ontario's VAT works a little better, but the list of thngs on the VAT are not that extensive and are truly luxury goods, and alcohol falls in its own category.

As I said, his plan is a flat tax by another name, but it is one... based on something like a VAT, which in theory works great, in practice not really.

Now I will add something, some EU nations have a combination of VAT (on luxury goods and gas, one reason gas is so damn extensive and promotes taking public transportation) and income tax that is quite progressive... that is what he should be looking at... and that would get rid of some of the tax code

[aquart]

6. The VAT is an appalling idea.

ANY sales tax penalizes lower income people and gifts the rich.

As for a mountain of paperwork? How many people will be able to handle that? The ones who have to pay people to do their taxes?

Can you see people sitting there trying to figure out what get taxed and what doesn't? And at what rate?

It doesn't simplify.

Fair tax, my ass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. As I said I had to read it

and I was appaled. I have seen a VAT in action... limited like Ontario, to truly luxury goods it makes some sense

But in Mexico, can I regale you and the rest of DU with horror stories?

Ok, so they don't tax medicines and the Metmorfin we had to get down there was dirt cheap (but not for the locals) but you get the point

Oh and on the edit, was ready to ponny up some money UNTIL I read this

[dave_p]

10. not quite

"ANY sales tax penalizes lower income people and gifts the rich"

Not quite. You can make a sales tax (like an income tax) as progressive or flat as you like: you just have to decide which products carry a 0% rate and which something a good deal higher.

But in general I tend to agree. Sales taxes are a poor substitute for a rational, efficient tax on earnings. Flat tax manages to combine just about the worst of all possible worlds.

[dave_p]

8. Mixing it

VAT's a seemingly cumbersome but in reality quite effective scheme, probably not so unlike a flat sales tax in practice (with rebates at intermediate points of use). Some EU countries are flatter than others. Britain exempts more and levies a lower VAT rate than France, for instance, thereby effectively operating two mildly progressive sytems in tandem, one at the point of income, the other upon spending. France has a more progressive income tax but a flatter and more uniform VAT rate. Economically, the effects are unspectacular: France far outpaced Britain until the 1990s and has since lagged without any radical change in the relationship of the two relative tax structures. the countries which have surged under a flat-tax regime are in eastern Europe, but it's likely that their growth is largely unrelated to their IMF-influenced choice of tax regime: all were effectively rebounding from the collapse of the early 1990s which left assets and labor gloriously cheap for those in a position to snap them up and to resell their products to less penny-pinching westerners.

There's a trade-off to be had at the end of the day between social fairness and economic efficiency. Stifling intitiative has to be avoided, but a rational tax informed by people's ability to pay is better than a flat tax that weighs on the poor and stifles their ability to consume output. Progressive income tax is socially progressive because it allows more purchasing-power to communities that will otherwise be left out of the equation. If they can't buy, we all lose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I've lived under a VAT system

and I know that it COULD be effective, but generally speaking it is far more cumbersome for people on the edge

[dave_p]

4. No

It isn't progressive. That's definitely the one thing it isn't.

Flat tax means I pay as much on my sole $100 as Bill Gates pays on his last $100. Progressive tax asks him to pay more, because his millionth $100 isn't so essential to him as the only $100 I earn.

Tax regimes are messy because of the way they've evolved amid varying economic conditions and social objectives. That's a reason to rationalise, not to demand that everyone pay the same rate.

To be fair, many flat-taxers urge transfer payments to the poor to compensate them for taxes on essentials. But those in the middle will lose out. And I doubt even the worst-off will hold their own, especially when the GOP finds itself with a flat-tax system at its disposal.

It's bad as social justice, and to the extent that it penalizes medium earners and menaces the resources that they can mobilize for self-growth, it's bad economics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. And after Reading it

well I liked what I heard until... I read his very regressive tax ideas.

[Digit]

3. His first rant sounded sane, the rest not so much

Towards the end, he was freaking me out.

[WinkyDink]

11. Indeed. No pussy-footing, no "how will this poll", no "after you, Alphonse".

[cleveramerican]

12. So glad he showed up

I think his presence showed in everyone's answers. He did what Dennis K did last go-round.He has a finely tuned bullshit antenna.