The respective presidential nominees of the Libertarian and Constitution parties, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin, both favor elimination of the IRS and the income tax. Both think that this could be accomplished by repealing the 16th amendment — an assertion some experts dispute. But they differ on how the federal government should be funded in the absence of an income tax.
Bob Barr:
Cutting spending would allow America to implement real tax reform. Our goal should be to reduce both the tax burden on Americans and the intrusion in their lives resulting from IRS enforcement of the income tax. One of the best approaches would be to adopt some form of a consumption tax, like a national sales tax, replacing the Internal Revenue Service and all federal income taxes as well as payroll taxes.
Chuck Baldwin:
When I become President, I will work feverishly to overturn the Sixteenth Amendment, which would repeal the Income Tax. And, no, I would not promote a national sales tax. That would be disastrous! Can you imagine what a 30% sales tax would do to the cost of EVERYTHING? Plus, give politicians a national sales tax to increase and just imagine what kind of percent that would grow into!
The most commonly discussed national sales-tax plan is the FairTax, which would put a 30% tax on all new products and services, including credit-card and mortgage interest, and pay each family of four a monthly “pre-bate” (referred to by opponents as a “welfare check”) of $537.
Bob Barr surprised and disappointed many Libertarians when his campaign Web site revealed his support for a national sales tax, but as of yet, he has not emphasized this aspect of his platform. Barr was not asked about it during the one debate in which he participated in Denver.
Update: Bill Woolsey points out that Chuck Baldwin supports tariffs to replace the income tax. And, unlike Ron Paul who advocates a revenue tariff, Baldwin “is calling for hiking tariffs to levels sufficient to make international trade ‘fair.'” Furthermore, Prof. Woolsey points out that Bob Barr is not calling for the 30% FairTax, which would allow the government to maintain its current spending levels, but instead, for dramatic cuts in spending. Barr is also open to tax reforms other than a national sales tax.
Does anyone know how much we import every year.
Fixed!
😛
The only way to bring America back is by going
back to the Gold Standardforward to competing privately issued currencies, replace income tax with25% tariffnothing, become energy independent throughdrilling for oil and natural gasdeveloping natural alternative energy in a true free market, and eliminate most of these government regulation.The club for growth is full of idiots. The only way to bring America back is by going back to the Gold Standard,replace income tax with 25% tariff, become energy independent through drilling for oil and natural gas, and eliminate most of these government regulation.
“Let them do one thing and let them do it right.”
Yes, and let that one thing be to disband.
Well what we should have is a massive decrease in government. Make the Federal Government only focused on Foreign Policy which includes immigration. Let them do one thing and let them do it right. Now we should have a 25% tariff and a 10% state tariff.
I learned several decades ago to not let “forced” taxpayer paid employees tell me who is a libertarian or anything else for that matter…
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1489317&postcount=1
Trent – The Club for (government) Growth also says Ron Paul is an opponent of free trade.
But Bob Barr is certainly no Ron Paul, and these votes bear it out.
* Numerous times to uphold the trade embargo and travel ban against Cuba.
* Against normal trade relations with China and Vietnam. Denial of NTR would have resulted in drastically higher tariffs on imports from those countries.
* In favor of mandatory “country of origin†labeling on imported food, a federal mandate aimed at discouraging consumers from buying imported food.
* Against lower tariffs on imports from Andean countries, including Colombia.
* Against capping farm subsidy payments to the largest farm operations.
* Against lower tariffs on goods imported from Caribbean and Sub-Saharan African countries.
* And in favor of quotas on steel imports.
Prof. Woolsely,
“Baldwin is calling for hiking tariffs to levels sufficient to make international trade ‘fair.’â€
How does this seperate him from Barr?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/05/14/is-bob-barr-a-libertarian-certainly-not-on-trade/
This report, released by Cato, says that Barr’s time in Congress was spent working against Free-trade.
The better thing to do would be to install the negative income tax, cut welfare and the overseas budget. Milton Friedman suggested it in the 70’s, and at least if you’re not going to cut empire spending, you should try to at least give the private sector control over welfare.
For Gods Sake Barr, at least adopt a flat tax. The fair tax is a shell game, a con.
One can’t even imagine the Constitution Party nominating somebody that was “Christian leaningâ€.
PEACE
Steve
While the CP would probably only nominate an orthodox Christian for President, it has lent it’s ballot line for other offices to some who do not fit that description. Trent Hill once spoke of a candidate for Congress who was a self-described Muslim/Buddhist, and I think the Mihigan USTP governor candidate was Hindu.
Prof. Woolsey – I just read your excellent article on the Fed from Liberty magazine. The type of “conspiracy talk” (which I knew to be false) you debunk is what made me an “advocate” for the Fed for a solid year. Your article is much appreciated. For those who’d like to read it, here is the link:
http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_10/woolsey-fed.html
My question, for someone as learned as you: What are your thoughts on the economic impact of a FairTax? I see it as calamitous, probably as bad as if the conspiracy theorists’ “greenback” system were implemented.
Baldwin is not “more libertarian” than Barr.
Baldwin is calling for hiking tariffs to levels sufficient to make international trade “fair.” His proposal to destroy any cost advantage to any foreign good will destroy the purpose of free trade. Baldwin is a true isolationist.
He says that the tariff hikes will also generate
revenue and replace part of the income tax.
A 30% sales tax rate is needed if the goal is to replace all existing federal taxes with a national sales tax and obtain the same revenue as the existing tax system (as well as provide a prebate to everyone equal to 23% of the poverty level.)
Barr is open to replacing the income with a sales tax. But he is proposing deep cuts in federal spending before any replacement of the income tax with a sales tax. So, something less than 30% would be needed. He has also rejected the “prebate.”
Browne called for more or less immediate cuts in spending to a point that the income tax could be more or less abolished immediately.
Paul has been vague. As far as I can tell, he has simply stated a long term goal of cutting back spending enough to get rid of the income tax without raising any other taxes.
This _means_ that getting rid of the IRS and the income tax must wait until government spending is cut enough. Paul has made plenty of statements explaining how hard that will be, opposing cutting off people dependent on government, etc.
While I presume that Paul would not oppose tax cuts before reaching the point where government is cut enough to cut the income tax to zero, he is silent about incremental steps. Where would he anticipate being in 2012?
Both Badlwin and Barr are holding out the promise of getting rid of the IRS and the income tax before spending is cut enough to do without any replacement source of revenue.
Barr is open to a national sales tax, a flat tax, or something else. (A flat tax would not get rid of the IRS, but would simplify tax calculations.)
Baldwin is specifically calling for tariff hikes (partly because he wants to choke off international trade anyway.)
As far as I can tell, neither Barr nor Baldwin
are opposed to having a minimal Federal
Budget that can be financed by taxes other
than the income tax.
That is, I have not seen either Barr nor Baldwin
critize Paul because a sales tax or tariffs are
needed to fund what they consider important
government activities.
I think it is a good thing that Barr is reaching out to the fair tax advocates. I am sure that none of them prefer a 30% rate to something lower. It is just that they want to get rid of the IRS and income tax now, and not wait for any
spending cuts at all.
I also doubt that many of them acutally consdier the “prebate” as a benefit, but rather as a compromise needed to avoid the complaints of egalitarians.
I believe that by saying nice things about the
Fair tax and proposing “improvements,” that
Barr will have a chance to reach out to the
fair tax movement.
I think that is a good thing.
Of course, Baldwin will be able to reach out to economic nationalists. That is because he is one. He isn’t a libertarian at all.
Mr. Andy, THAT is what happens when you nominate somebody that is “Libertarian leaning”, as opposed to “Libertarian”.
One can’t even imagine the Constitution Party nominating somebody that was “Christian leaning”.
PEACE
Steve
It is pretty pathetic that the Constitution Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin is actually more libertarian than the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr.
Barr is too smart of a politician to switch from the FairTax to the “replace the IRS with nothing” camp for two reasons: first, because he fears being viewed as a flip-flopper, and second, because he knows that the FairTax will help him woo disgruntled moderate conservatives who thought that Ron Paul’s position on this issue was nutty.
If the concept of libertarianism and the potential good of the country weren’t at stake, I would applaud Barr on a good tactical move. There’s no questioning his skills as a tactician.
I find it a little surprising that no one took up Barr personally on the FairTax in Denver. We also heard early on that Barr’s tax proposal was going to be different somehow from the Boortz/Linder FairTax, but no word on that yet.
I get the feeling the campaign was put together in a rush, despite the popular wisdom that Barr’s been planning this since he first joined. Too many obvious obstacles that could have been planned for way back. The FairTax is a prime example – rattled some people into anti-Barrism right from day one. And given the long-standing position almost all libertarians have always shared on the matter, and the fact that Ron Paul’s been campaigning on replacing the income tax with nothing for over a year, it should have been the easiest call of the pre-campaign planning. That’s why I’m watching Barr more closely now that he’s actually campaigning.