Archive

Public Servant is a Liar ....VAT still on the table

  • Belly35
    The idea of VAT is still on the table ..... No Hope and Another way to take our Change

    http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/9000/11036804/Obama_suggests_value-added_tax_may_be_an_option

    Bipartisanship has broken out in the Senate, not that the media bothered to notice. Last week John McCain introduced a resolution stating that "It is the sense of the Senate that the Value Added Tax is a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery." The resolution passed 85 to 13.

    However America Obama still has it on his aganda VAT tax

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575172190620528592.html
    Europe's VAT Lessons
    Rates start low and increase, while income tax rates stay high.
    As Americans rush to complete their annual tax returns today, there is still some consolation in knowing that it could be worse: Like Europeans, we could pay both income taxes and a value-added tax, or VAT. And maybe we soon will. Paul Volcker, Nancy Pelosi, John Podesta and other allies of the Obama Administration have already floated the idea of an American VAT, so we thought you might like to know how it has worked in Europe.
    A VAT is essentially a national sales tax that is assessed at each stage of production, with the bill passed along to consumers at the cash register. In Europe the average rate is a little under 20%. (See the nearby chart.) In the U.S., a federal VAT would presumably be levied on top of state and local sales taxes that range as high as 10%. Some nations also exempt food, medicine and certain other goods from the tax.

    VATs were sold in Europe as a way to tax consumption, which in principle does less economic harm than taxing income, savings or investment. This sounds good, but in practice the VAT has rarely replaced the income tax, or even resulted in a lower income-tax rate. The top individual income tax rate remains very high in Europe despite the VAT, with an average on the continent of about 46%.
    Europe's individual income tax rates have fallen since the 1980s, following the U.S. lead in the Reagan era, and European corporate tax rates have come down even more sharply. But the drive of this decline has been global tax competition, not the offsetting burden of the VAT.
    In the U.S., VAT proponents aren't calling for a repeal of the 16th Amendment that allowed the income tax—and, in fact, they want income tax rates to rise. The White House has promised to let the top individual rate increase in January to 39.6% from 35% as the Bush tax cuts expire, while the dividend rate will go to 39.6% from 15% and the capital gains rate to 20% next year and 23.8% in 2013 under the health bill, from 15% today. Even with these higher rates, or because of them, revenues won't come close to paying for the Obama Administration's new spending—which is why it is also eyeing a VAT.
    One trait of European VATs is that while their rates often start low, they rarely stay that way. Of the 10 major OECD nations with VATs or national sales taxes, only Canada has lowered its rate. Denmark has gone to 25% from 9%, Germany to 19% from 10%, and Italy to 20% from 12%. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation recently calculated that to balance the U.S. federal budget with a VAT would require a rate of at least 18%.
    Proponents also argue that a VAT would result in less federal government borrowing. But that, too, has rarely been true in Europe. From the 1980s through 2005, deficits were by and large higher in Europe than in the U.S. By 2005, debt averaged 50% of GDP in Europe, according to OECD data, compared to under 40% in the U.S.
  • BoatShoes
    What ideas do you have to reduce our national debt Belly as opposed to raise revenue with something like the VAT if don't do non-revenue neutral changes to the Federal Income Tax? If you say cut spending, what exactly are you going to cut?
  • I Wear Pants
    The Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire because they shouldn't have happened in the first place.
  • iclfan2
    So not only should we tax the rich more, through VAT taxes (because the rich buy more), we should also let the Bush tax cuts go out. Let's double rape the rich, that will really show them for being successful...
  • Writerbuckeye
    iclfan2 wrote: So not only should we tax the rich more, through VAT taxes (because the rich buy more), we should also let the Bush tax cuts go out. Let's double rape the rich, that will really show them for being successful...
    Not to mention take more money out of the hands of people who actually tend to invest it in ventures that CREATE JOBS.

    It's a double death blow for the economy.

    You want to stop the madness? Put an immediate FREEZE on every aspect of government, and start paring agency by agency.

    Stop passing legislation that hands out pork like candy to kids on Halloween and make the government actually live within the money it receives -- or less.
  • Sykotyk
    Oh, that's right. We should bow down and grovel at the feet of the wealthy because without them we'd all be penniless.

    Great logic there.

    I'm against a VAT because it will disproportionately affect the lower incomes, who, generally, already pay out their entire income in living expenses or worse, their income is so low they have assistance to meet those minimum living expenses.

    From WWII until Reagan, the top tax rate for the wealthiest was over 80% mostly, not the piddly 35% it is today. And the economy worked fine. People had jobs. Wealthy Americans didn't threaten to move to other countries, or to threaten to close down business because they can't just possibly make enough. But, people are greedy. Since Reagan has any industry experienced wage increases that outpaced inflation?

    Sykotyk
  • tk421
    I want Obama to personally come out in favor of a VAT. That would be a death knell for any chance of reelection in 2012. The idea that the people of this country should tolerate an increase in taxes and new taxes put into place, when the government is such a poor manager of the money they already receive, is absolutely mind boggling. Anyone who thinks that a VAT tax will magically make the government deficit neutral or pay down the debt is living in a fantasy world. Any increased revenue will be promptly spent and we will still run massive deficits. Enough is enough.
  • Belly35
    BoatShoes wrote: What ideas do you have to reduce our national debt Belly as opposed to raise revenue with something like the VAT if don't do non-revenue neutral changes to the Federal Income Tax? If you say cut spending, what exactly are you going to cut?
    Can't have both VAT and Federal Income Tax ....not an option

    Flat tax across the board and drop the Federal Income Tax ....everyone chips in.......... That would be Spreading the Responsibility :D
  • BoatShoes
    iclfan2 wrote: So not only should we tax the rich more, through VAT taxes (because the rich buy more), we should also let the Bush tax cuts go out. Let's double rape the rich, that will really show them for being successful...
    The upper middle class on down would disproportionately be affected by a VAT more so than they are the current income tax. By all accounts people above and beyond "doing well" will not feel as much pain from a vat as the average american.

    The people who would once again get soaked are high wage earners like say say, a successful attorney, pushing into the AMT now being hit with an additional consumption tax.
  • BoatShoes
    Belly35 wrote:
    BoatShoes wrote: What ideas do you have to reduce our national debt Belly as opposed to raise revenue with something like the VAT if don't do non-revenue neutral changes to the Federal Income Tax? If you say cut spending, what exactly are you going to cut?
    Can't have both VAT and Federal Income Tax ....not an option

    Flat tax across the board and drop the Federal Income Tax ....everyone chips in.......... That would be Spreading the Responsibility :D
    Well why? You already have your federal income tax and the payroll taxes (which are both forms of consumption taxes) along with State and local sales tax depending on where you live. If you don't make more than 250k you're essentially living under a consumption tax anyways under the IRC so a Vat would be consistent for you.
  • tk421
    Hmm, this thread is pretty quiet. Where are all the liberals who voted for Barack "No new taxes for anyone making less than $250,000" Obama? I guess people making less than 250,000 don't buy anything in this country? What a freaking joke.
  • BoatShoes
    tk421 wrote: Hmm, this thread is pretty quiet. Where are all the liberals who voted for Barack "No new taxes for anyone making less than $250,000" Obama? I guess people making less than 250,000 don't buy anything in this country? What a freaking joke.
    Well this VAT tax would certainly make the 47% who don't pay federal income tax contribute to the non-medicaid/non-ss federal coffers. So, if the fact that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax...perhaps a VAT shouldn't bother you.

    It means nothing to me that Barry told gullible folks out there that their taxes would not be raised when an unsustainable debt situation is on the horizon...Perhaps he's at least smart enough to wait until his second term.
  • tk421
    BoatShoes wrote:
    tk421 wrote: Hmm, this thread is pretty quiet. Where are all the liberals who voted for Barack "No new taxes for anyone making less than $250,000" Obama? I guess people making less than 250,000 don't buy anything in this country? What a freaking joke.
    Well this VAT tax would certainly make the 47% who don't pay federal income tax contribute to the non-medicaid/non-ss federal coffers. So, if the fact that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax...perhaps a VAT shouldn't bother you.

    It means nothing to me that Barry told gullible folks out there that their taxes would not be raised when an unsustainable debt situation is on the horizon...Perhaps he's at least smart enough to wait until his second term.
    Perhaps instead of raising taxes, the federal government should cut the freaking budget and live within their means, just like every household in this country does. Why anyone would support giving the government increased revenues is beyond me. They already take in plenty of money. Time for massive cuts. Everyone in America will have to suck it up and deal with it.
  • I Wear Pants
    tk421 wrote:
    BoatShoes wrote:
    tk421 wrote: Hmm, this thread is pretty quiet. Where are all the liberals who voted for Barack "No new taxes for anyone making less than $250,000" Obama? I guess people making less than 250,000 don't buy anything in this country? What a freaking joke.
    Well this VAT tax would certainly make the 47% who don't pay federal income tax contribute to the non-medicaid/non-ss federal coffers. So, if the fact that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax...perhaps a VAT shouldn't bother you.

    It means nothing to me that Barry told gullible folks out there that their taxes would not be raised when an unsustainable debt situation is on the horizon...Perhaps he's at least smart enough to wait until his second term.
    Perhaps instead of raising taxes, the federal government should cut the freaking budget and live within their means, just like every household in this country does. Why anyone would support giving the government increased revenues is beyond me. They already take in plenty of money. Time for massive cuts. Everyone in America will have to suck it up and deal with it.
    So you were against the Bush tax cuts?
  • queencitybuckeye
    Sykotyk wrote: Oh, that's right. We should bow down and grovel at the feet of the wealthy because without them we'd all be penniless.

    Great logic there.

    It's actually solid logic, sarcasm aside.
  • queencitybuckeye
    BoatShoes wrote:
    tk421 wrote: Hmm, this thread is pretty quiet. Where are all the liberals who voted for Barack "No new taxes for anyone making less than $250,000" Obama? I guess people making less than 250,000 don't buy anything in this country? What a freaking joke.
    Well this VAT tax would certainly make the 47% who don't pay federal income tax contribute to the non-medicaid/non-ss federal coffers. So, if the fact that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax...perhaps a VAT shouldn't bother you.

    It means nothing to me that Barry told gullible folks out there that their taxes would not be raised when an unsustainable debt situation is on the horizon...Perhaps he's at least smart enough to wait until his second term.
    There is no way we can tax our way out of deficits with anything close to current spending levels. It just isn't possible.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Sykotyk wrote:
    From WWII until Reagan, the top tax rate for the wealthiest was over 80% mostly, not the piddly 35% it is today. And the economy worked fine. People had jobs. Wealthy Americans didn't threaten to move to other countries, or to threaten to close down business because they can't just possibly make enough. But, people are greedy. Since Reagan has any industry experienced wage increases that outpaced inflation?

    Sykotyk
    You want to go back to where you want to take four dollars out of every five that someone earns, and then turn around and call THEM greedy? No hypocrisy there. :rolleyes:
  • BoatShoes
    tk421 wrote:
    BoatShoes wrote:
    tk421 wrote: Hmm, this thread is pretty quiet. Where are all the liberals who voted for Barack "No new taxes for anyone making less than $250,000" Obama? I guess people making less than 250,000 don't buy anything in this country? What a freaking joke.
    Well this VAT tax would certainly make the 47% who don't pay federal income tax contribute to the non-medicaid/non-ss federal coffers. So, if the fact that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax...perhaps a VAT shouldn't bother you.

    It means nothing to me that Barry told gullible folks out there that their taxes would not be raised when an unsustainable debt situation is on the horizon...Perhaps he's at least smart enough to wait until his second term.
    Perhaps instead of raising taxes, the federal government should cut the freaking budget and live within their means, just like every household in this country does. Why anyone would support giving the government increased revenues is beyond me. They already take in plenty of money. Time for massive cuts. Everyone in America will have to suck it up and deal with it.

    How do you cut.
    1. social security
    2. medicare
    3. Defense

    Everything else, Pork, NASA, Student Loans, Pell Grants...that's nothing compared to those 3. And you can't cut Interest which is also huge.
  • derek bomar
    Defense IMO is easy to cut. Seriously, we have bases everywhere. We don't need them. We don't need to nation build, and we don't need a new war toy every year. We have enough nukes and enough capability that if a nation ever wanted to fuck with us it'd be the end of the world, so that aint happenin. From here on out its all about deterring terrorism, so I don't get why we continue to spend money on conventional weapons/systems and continue to have bases everywhere. Countries need to fend for themselves. If i was President I'd straight up cut the defense budget on day 1 in half.

    As for SS...raise the age limit to 70.

    Also, I'd raise taxes for a year or two dramatically on everyone, with the promise to all citizens that it's in attempt to pay down the debt, so we don't continue to incur huge interest every year. I think if you sold it like that, and had some credibility, people would be ok with it. We can't continue to let the interest take up such a huge % of our budget each year.
  • jmog
    You cut defense slightly, I'm not for as big a cuts as DB is stating, but as the war in Iraq dies down and hopfully in Afghanistan, the defense budget will naturally drop.

    People are living longer, make small percentage cuts like 10% to SS and raise the age limit like DB said.

    Medicare-do real health reform with tort reform, etc and medicare costs, along with the rest of our health insurance premiums, will go down.
  • derek bomar
    jmog wrote: You cut defense slightly, I'm not for as big a cuts as DB is stating, but as the war in Iraq dies down and hopfully in Afghanistan, the defense budget will naturally drop.

    People are living longer, make small percentage cuts like 10% to SS and raise the age limit like DB said.

    Medicare-do real health reform with tort reform, etc and medicare costs, along with the rest of our health insurance premiums, will go down.
    Not really sure why we need to cut it slightly. We spend 10x more on defense than the 2nd closest right? So if we cut it in half, we'd still be spending 5x as much...
  • Prescott
    Defense IMO is easy to cut. Seriously, we have bases everywhere. We don't need them. We don't need to nation build, and we don't need a new war toy every year. We have enough nukes and enough capability that if a nation ever wanted to fuck with us it'd be the end of the world, so that aint happenin. From here on out its all about deterring terrorism, so I don't get why we continue to spend money on conventional weapons/systems and continue to have bases everywhere. Countries need to fend for themselves. If i was President I'd straight up cut the defense budget on day 1 in half.

    As for SS...raise the age limit to 70.

    Also, I'd raise taxes for a year or two dramatically on everyone, with the promise to all citizens that it's in attempt to pay down the debt, so we don't continue to incur huge interest every year. I think if you sold it like that, and had some credibility, people would be ok with it. We can't continue to let the interest take up such a huge % of our budget each year.
    I agree with this except for the last clause. In no way do I trust the government to levy a tax with the PROMISE that it will be rescinded in a year or two. Of course DB knows that or he wouldn't have included "HAD SOME CREDIBILITY".
  • Belly35
    Cut Cut Cut……my ass
    Before you can do anything of value, that would have lasting and direct responsibility to correcting the problems …you have to clean up the core of the problems created …Fraud, Misdirect Funds, Cheating….
    Clean up ….SS, Medicaid, Medicare, Defense, Education, Welfare and other area of government that has individual, operational and departmental ………… FRAUD

    Stop the Fraud now and then see where the deficits is……….. Then develop program in place to curb the fraud for the future. Then look at potential cuts……..and new programs

    So quick to Cut but so Scared to find fault
  • derek bomar
    ccrunner609 wrote: I dont understand why anyone would be for any type of taxes?
    are you kidding?
  • cbus4life
    ccrunner609 wrote: I dont understand why anyone would be for any type of taxes?
    Lol.