Who is this Mike Gravel?

[Ian David]

Who is this Mike Gravel?
published Thursday, July 5, 2007


Mike Gravel became a cinematic sensation via an unlikely three-minute video on YouTube that was picked up by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" in mid-June. Gravel, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Alaska and the darkest of dark horses in the 2008 presidential race, stares point-blank into a camera with a lake and a walkway in the backdrop.

He stares . . . and stares. His lips quiver slightly, but his gaze stays locked. After 70 rather eerie seconds of silence, he turns around, picks up a rock with both hands, heaves it into the lake and walks away.

Gravel's opus has been viewed more than 160,000 times. It's not quite Obama Girl at 2 million hits to date, but prior to the first presidential debate in South Carolina in April, barely a soul had heard of the 76-year-old Gravel, let alone knew he was a candidate.

He made an impression there -- his demeanor by turns frank, comical, and angry. He allowed as how all the top-tier candidates "frighten" him and said that he was embarrassed by the actions of the Democratic-controlled Congress. After he hadn't been asked a question for quite some time, he noted that he was beginning to feel like a "potted plant" on the stage.

More:
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/07/05/1

[Hieronymus]

1. It turns out he's a nut. On Mike Malloy, Gravel said he wanted a sales tax

instead of an income tax .. grossly unfair.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Not necessarily. He advocates a progressive sales tax.

As I understand it, that means no tax on foodstuffs, and sales tax rates that increase with the value of the purchase. I don't know what schedule he has considered but it would work out like, as an example, 10% on the 1st $1,000 value, 12% for itemes between $1,000.01 and $10,000; 15% for $10,000.01 to $40,000; etc. That means the items purchased for simply living would be low taxed, that the buy who spends $60,000 for a Lexus would pay a higher tax than the guy spending $16,000 for his Honda. It's eminently fair, because nobody is forcing anyone to buy the expensive goods, and if a poor man got up the money to buy the expensive shit, he'd pay the high tax just like the rich guy; and if the rich guy doesn't like paying the high sales tax he can buy a Kia instead of a Lotus. The sales tax on a 1300 sq ft house would be much lower than that on a 4,000 sq ft mansion.

And there is no way to escape that tax. Everything has to be bought by someone at some time. I'm sure there is a way to write in provisions covering leasing, rather than buying, vehicles. The tax-free foodstuffs could have exceptions written in so that luxury foods, that caviar and pate foi gras, won't escape along with the mac & cheese.

It is a doable proposition that is worthy of consideration.

[Bucky]

3. That's not quite as crazy an idea as I thought originally. But Gravel is still nuts

That's probably an equitable way of distributing the tax burden on consumers. But corporations would see a huge reduction in the taxes they pay since their principle expenditures (labor, capital investment) would be tax exempt. Taxing incomes is a lot more efficient, but at least one could reasonably argue for a progressive sales tax.

Gravel's unprofessional conduct on stage is still annoying.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. I prefer "eccentric".

And yes, the tax structure for corporations and businesses would have to be completely revamped, and separated from the sales tax. A good start on that would be revoking corporate 'personhood' - as it is, they already escape paying tax on a vast majority of their income thru any number of dodges. Only small businesses that can least afford them wind up paying close to everything they owe.

And i find Gravel's debate conduct refreshing - he knows he doesn't have a bat's chance of winning the nomination so he has no need to play it safe. He says what the others cannot say in very un-politic terms. I like that so much better than the safe, rehearsed, careful language of the top tier candidates. Sometimes, they scare me, too.

[genie_weenie]

7. You do realize this is the man who read

the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record?

http://www.archipelago.org/vol10-12/gravel.htm

[xxqqqzme]

8. Evidently, it is more fun to brand him a nut than

look into his history. Alaska has fallen far when observing one of their current 'nut' senators.

[genie_weenie]

9. Well he can't "win". So why is he running and hurting the

chances of our candidates?

[Hippo_Tron]

13. It's his age and personality that make him seem to be a nut

If he had run 20 years ago, he would've been taken seriously. Now everyone just thinks "There goes senile old Gravel".

[Bucky]

12. Yes, I'm quite aware of his important contribution in the past

I just don't think that gives him license to act screwy on TV now. He seems to think of politics as a form of performance art. It's not. His say-anything wacky grampa routine was cute the first couple of times I saw it. Since then, the charm has worn thin and he doesn't contribute anything of substance to the political debate. There's a place for a voice like his, but it doesn't belong on stage with the sincere candidates.

[cosmik debris]

5. Sales taxes are regressive no matter how they are structured.

They are grossly unfair to low income families. It is shameful that a Democrat would advocate that.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Did you read my post?

How could a progressivly structured sales tax be regressive? How could it be less fair than what we have today, where the working poor bear the greatest share of the tax burden?

Sales taxes are only regressive if the rich pay the same rates as the poor - because the poor spend all their money on life necessities, while only a bare fraction of what the rich spend is on life necessities. If the tax is graduated up with the value of what is being purchased, the wealthy will pay a much larger share - they are not going to not buy their toys, their status symbol cars and boats and homes. When Paris Hilton buys a new diamond bracelet she'd be paying a 60%, 80% tax on it, not the 2.75% that you'd pay for a pair of socks. A rich person could avoid paying high taxes, but to do so he'd have to live like a poor person.

There are only two ways to asses taxes - either tax on income, which we've learned over the past century is very prone to abuse and inequality; or tax on sales or use, which is generally, currently very regressive, though there are exceptions with added 'luxury' taxes. We've never really looked at the possibility of a progressive sales/use tax. Considering that it is the wealthy who write our tax laws, I have to wonder why.

[cosmik debris]

11. 10% on the first $1000

So the poor and the rich would pay the same dollar amount on a roll of toilet paper. But the rich would pay a MUCH LOWER percent of their income than the poor guy. That is regressive no matter what you call it. Any time the poor pay a greater percentage of their income in tax than the rich pay it is a regressive tax.

And consider what happens when you put a 10% tax on top of my state and city taxes of 8.25%. The poor in Texas will get SOAKED with an 18.25% tax!

And then there is the disparity in prices. Goods don't cost the same in all areas of the country. People who live where goods are cheap will definitely have an advantage.

The solution to the tax code problem is to clean up the tax code, not to scrap it in favor of a worse system.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. That was "as an example", to make a point about the progression.

Don't latch onto hypothetical numbers to prove a point -- it makes you look silly. I fully expect the low end would be much lower - something like .5% or 1% (edit: or even 0%) for the first $100.00, scaling up to ridiculous amounts like 150% for $million, for those yachts and stuff. As it is now (allowing for local disparities) the rich pay the same percent sales tax on a million dollar yacht as on a roll of toilet paper.

The point is, a sales tax is a consumers tax. Those who consume little, by choice or by poverty, would pay the least. Those who live for overconsumption would pay the most.

I personally have no problem with the income tax, but it is easily skewed because those who write the laws and vote on the laws are the ones who most profit by skewing the tax code. And you know as well as I we are not going to convince congress to strip away their own tax shelters.

Maybe what we need is a little out-of-the-box thinking.

[cosmik debris]

15. You can use any numbers you want

It still comes out with more rich people paying a lower percent of their income than the less rich. The richer you are, the lower percent of income you pay in tax on the same transaction. All sales taxes are regressive because the tax rate is always better for people who make more money.

[Milo_Bloom]

16. You are getting lost here...

"It still comes out with more rich people paying a lower percent of their income than the less rich. The richer you are, the lower percent of income you pay in tax on the same transaction. All sales taxes are regressive because the tax rate is always better for people who make more money."

You are trying to stay in the world of "income", instead of "consumption". Rich people ALREADY pay a lower % of their income than the less rich. As a business owner, I can instantly shelter 45K of income into a 401K, but you have to make it to shelter it. So essentially, if I make 100K, I will only pay tax on 55K. So, me and someone making 55K will pay the same tax, despite the fact that I actually made nearly double the income. There is little chance they will be able to afford to take 90% of their income and shelter it, where it will be much easier for me to live on 55K and shelter 45K.

When you talk in terms of a progressive sales tax, you have to take the concept of "income" and throw it out the window. It doesn't matter how much money someone makes anymore, it matters how much they CONSUME.

If you scale the tax according to cost of the item, you end up with a much fairer and easier to manage system.

This also benefits in many other ways. You reward those who conserve. You want a big expensive gas guzzling car... you will pay a higher tax on it. Want a nice, cheaper high MPG car, less tax.

[ellenfl]

4. he helped publicize the pentagon papers and bring down nixon.

that makes him VERY ok in my book. so he's a little nutty. think of what you have had to deal with for the last six years and get back to me on gravel's nuttiness. he sounds pretty sane to me . . . odd, maybe, but sane.

ellen fl