On this we disagree, Michael Kinsley:

[It’s] easy to figure out who would win and who would lose in Huckabee’s so-called “fair” tax. It’s a zero-sum game: Every dollar someone’s taxes go down is a dollar someone else’s go up.

The plan is not Huckabee’s—it’s one that he’s found. (Us too!) It’s called “FairTax” because yes, things need catchy names. It’s not a zero sum game because much of the overhead of the current system would be eliminated. Outside of that positive there will be winners and losers, and M.K. correctly divides them up by the portion of their income they save:

What you spend every year is the amount you earn minus the amount you save. On average, Americans save practically nothing, but wealthier people save more. Very poor people actually spend more than they earn…

But spending is a choice, and Americans have been choosing financial ruin. How sorry can we feel for people who take out second mortgages to buy play boats and trucks to tow them? Excuse our thrifty, money-saving middle class hearts for not being very sad that spending up to and beyond one’s means would be discouraged under a consumption tax. As for the poor, they make out like bandits with FairTax, so please don’t throw it into that briar patch.

The group that loses under FairTax is the one that needs to lose, for its own good as well as the country’s and even, gosh, the planet’s. It’s time for movement liberals to get over their unhappy obsession with stealing from the (most) rich; it’s gotten us nothing but a class of faux riche living in faux mansions driving in, for mysterious reasons, faux tanks.

Leveraged over-consumption by a super-size-me class is not a recipe for civilizational success.