Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't see what other option America has at this point. You've built up a lot of debt over the last ten years that is better paid sooner rather than later - the more you delay, the more you'll have to pay. Your only other realistic option is to inflate your way out of the debt and we all know what that'll lead to.

The best you can hope for, I think, is a VAT with a sunset clause built in at the 5 year mark. Hopefully then with a good part of the debt paid off the VAT disappears and you start moving in the direction of lower taxes again.

The problem is that we won't increase taxes to pay the deficit. We'll take some minor part of it perhaps, but like health care this will be spun as being the greatest thing, and the majority will go to increase spending. We might even spend more than we take in.

That's what DC does, and we'll be hearing how wonderful this is if the party gets on board from the locksteps here and elsewhere.

I thought the Republicans were idiots for lining up behind Bush, but the Dems are just as bad. Watch and see how opinion changes once they spin this right.

 

[Bowfinger]

See, I have no problems with taxing the rich to provide services that we all need including roads/national security/etc. However, the rich should not pay for some bum that gets welfare, or a union member's hefty pension,or a disabled kid's special education, or food stamps for 1/8th of the population, or any other government excess. Once you go there, you aren't being fair. You're entering the realm of wealth distribution, where you take from the productive and give to the people who generally do no good.

You mean like to defense contractors, Wall Street executives, big investors, those sorts of no good people, right? Oh, no, you don't mean that because you're too clueless to recognize how much of the middle class' wealth is already being redistributed to those wealthy few. You think it all goes to the poor because that's what the guy on Daddy's radio screams about.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You mean like to defense contractors, Wall Street executives, big investors, those sorts of no good people, right? Oh, no, you don't mean that because you're too clueless to recognize how much of the middle class' wealth is already being redistributed to those wealthy few. You think it all goes to the poor because that's what the guy on Daddy's radio screams about.

Did you support TARP? The other bailouts?

Oh and nice try with the class envy diversion attempt. We can always count on you fringe libs to trot out the whine about the "wealthy"

 

[Bowfinger]

Did you support TARP? The other bailouts?

Define "support." I believe the various bailouts to be an outrageous looting of the public treasury, certainly unprecedented in America's history. Unfortunately, people who know far more about it than I do seem convinced it was necessary to prevent ravaging the U.S. economy. Assuming that this is true, I still don't understand why the people who caused the crisis and who most benefited from it aren't now sitting in jail.

On second thought, I do understand why. It's because so many of those people are in Congress, were in Congress, or are in bed with Congressmen (of both parties) who are protecting each other.

Oh and nice try with the class envy diversion attempt. We can always count on you fringe libs to trot out the whine about the "wealthy"

No dipshit, I'm just pointing out that when you wing-nuts whine about wealth redistribution you focus on the benefits given to the have-nots and somehow ignore the quite lavish benefits given to the have-mores. The middle class get to foot the bill. The plain and simple fact is over the last few decades there has been a tremendous concentration of American wealth in the hands of an elite few. It's not class envy to point out this fact.


(I assume you've missed my reply to your earlier message in this thread.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Define "support." I believe the various bailouts to be an outrageous looting of the public treasury, certainly unprecedented in America's history. Unfortunately, people who know far more about it than I do seem convinced it was necessary to prevent ravaging the U.S. economy. Assuming that this is true, I still don't understand why the people who caused the crisis and who most benefited from it aren't now sitting in jail.

On second thought, I do understand why. It's because so many of those people are in Congress, were in Congress, or are in bed with Congressmen (of both parties) who are protecting each other.


No dipshit, I'm just pointing out that when you wing-nuts whine about wealth redistribution you focus on the benefits given to the have-nots and somehow ignore the quite lavish benefits given to the have-mores. The middle class get to foot the bill. The plain and simple fact is over the last few decades there has been a tremendous concentration of American wealth in the hands of an elite few. It's not class envy to point out this fact.


(I assume you've missed my reply to your earlier message in this thread.)

"support" as in defend or agree with those who voted for them.
I don't know who you think the smart people are but it sounds like you bought into the "collapse" propaganda they put out.

Uh, sorry but when the topic is social welfare and the like - it makes sense to talk about that area. If you want to talk corporate welfare and the like - that's a different subject. You'd be hard pressed to find me supporting Federal corporate welfare which is what I have to assume you are talking about when you yap about "lavish benefits given to the have-mores". If you are not - please point out specifically what you mean by "lavish benefits given to the have-mores".

Your earlier reply is covered in the other thread. You know, the one where you won't accept reality.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Go ahead and call it whatever you want as long as we continue to grab a fair share out of your pocket that you should've been paying to begin with.

You call it wealth redistribution, I call it sharing the pain. :thumbsup:

Define "fair share" - enough to bring him down to your level, if he happens to make more than you? Is that what fair share is?

If everyone paid the same percentage, say 10% (easy, round number to work with, not saying that this necessarily is the rate to use) a richer person would still be paying a lot more than a middle class or poor person, because 10% of 1M is a heck of a lot more than 10% of say 50k or 20k for example. But somehow you people seem to think that it isn't enough that they pay 100k in taxes, no, they need to increase the percentage too! What?! How and why is that fair?

Of course, if you can't seem to get through your head that a VAT would impact poor people much more than rich people, I guess I can hardly expect you to understand basic ideas and math such as this.

People wonder how this country got to where it is. All they gotta do is look around them, see people like you, realize those people vote, and they have their answers. And what's worse is we have people with that kind of thinking in Washington. Oh, of course they make some decent money there, easily upper class money for many of them, but they are somehow exempt from all these "tax the evil rich people" taxes they put in place. As long as they themselves don't pay for any of it...

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Define "fair share" - enough to bring him down to your level, if he happens to make more than you? Is that what fair share is?

Dave is an America-hating lunatic who is jealous of the success of others. He is such a delusional hack that he has no clue what the implications of a VAT would be. He's the type that would lobby for it, it would be passed, and then he would blame Republicans for it when he realized how hard it hits him.

He ignores the fact that the "rich" pay the huge majority of taxes in this country, nor will he answer your question about what is "fair share" with any quantifiable measure. Instead, he'll 1) insult 2) divert 3) answer with a soundbite or some populist drivel and 4) run away like a scared school kid. That's what we've come to expect from Dave, and he always meets or even surprises us and comes in lower than our already extremely low expectations of him.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Of course they will continue to evade as evidenced by what they say on this board but at least we'll get a bit more out them along the way too.

The rich pay a large portion of the taxes in this country. The 50% of Americans who pay no income taxes are largely the bottom feeders of society -- such as yourself.

You're such a spineless buffoon that you block people when they ask you to back up your ridiculous claims. It doesn't matter -- keep posting, it gives us all good laughs and you make a bigger ass out of yourself every day.

 

[Jhhnn]

The 50% of Americans who pay no income taxes are largely the bottom feeders of society -- such as yourself.

That's shameful in ways you can't even realize, because you're blinded by the ideology of greed. Americans work the jobs they can get, the jobs that capitalists make available which increasingly pay less in relative terms than in the past. Just the way it is- there's no moral superiority in having a higher paying job, no matter how much you'd like to think there is...

 

[EagleKeeper]

That's shameful in ways you can't even realize, because you're blinded by the ideology of greed. Americans work the jobs they can get, the jobs that capitalists make available which increasingly pay less in relative terms than in the past. Just the way it is- there's no moral superiority in having a higher paying job, no matter how much you'd like to think there is...

Americans also have the ability to better themselves if they choose to.

Nothing is holding them back except their own choices.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Go ahead and call it whatever you want as long as we continue to grab a fair share out of your pocket that you should've been paying to begin with.

You call it wealth redistribution, I call it sharing the pain. :thumbsup:

So what happens when someone that earns no income wants you do give them 20% of what you have.

They are now reaching into your pocket. Is that fine by your wife.

You have complained over the years how when you tried to get ahead, you were pulled down.
Why did you want to get ahead then. To have more than others? But you are stating that you do not want such - you desire perfect parity.

 

[soccerballtux]

David Cowen exhibits a dangerous level of what I would call "bitter envy". Someone else has something, you think you deserve it and want it instead, and if you can't have it they shouldn't have it either.

It is disgustingly destructive to societies.

 

[nick1985]

The rich pay a large portion of the taxes in this country. The 50% of Americans who pay no income taxes are largely the bottom feeders of society -- such as yourself.

Scathing, yet accurate.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

That's shameful in ways you can't even realize, because you're blinded by the ideology of greed. Americans work the jobs they can get, the jobs that capitalists make available which increasingly pay less in relative terms than in the past. Just the way it is- there's no moral superiority in having a higher paying job, no matter how much you'd like to think there is...

It was a tongue-in-cheek remark directed at Dave. Don't read too much into the insult.

Regardless, I'm not "blinded by the ideology of greed." I am more than willing to pay taxes to run the country, but ALL people should be contributing -- PERIOD. What is shameful are the credits and loopholes allowing people to actually get more back on their tax return than what they had withheld. THAT is shameful. Guess who pays for these people to make a "profit" on their returns? You guessed it -- the 50% who end up paying.

No one can seriously sit there and say "I find it acceptable that 50% of Americans pay no income tax." Sure, there are some poor people who can't pay, and I understand that; however, there is no way that 50% of the country is "poor."

EDIT: As Common Courtesy said, people have the option of bettering themselves as well. You act like people are scrambling for the table scraps of the "evil capitalists" and can't move on to bigger and better things. Some choose not to and that's fair, but then they shouldn't complain.

 

[Jhhnn]

Americans also have the ability to better themselves if they choose to.

Nothing is holding them back except their own choices.

Pure pablum. What applies to exceptional individuals on a personal level doesn't apply to whole classes of people within an economic structure. Anybody can get ahead, not everybody can do so simultaneously. When un and under employment hover at 17% and there are 5.5 applicants per job, your assertions are meaningless. The number of applicants for decent paying jobs is actually much higher, given the constant churn and understaffing in low paying jobs. They're always open.

Regardless, I'm not "blinded by the ideology of greed." I am more than willing to pay taxes to run the country, but ALL people should be contributing -- PERIOD. What is shameful are the credits and loopholes allowing people to actually get more back on their tax return than what they had withheld. THAT is shameful. Guess who pays for these people to make a "profit" on their returns? You guessed it -- the 50% who end up paying.

No one can seriously sit there and say "I find it acceptable that 50% of Americans" pay no income tax." Sure, there are some poor people who can't pay, and I understand that; however, there is no way that 50% of the country is "poor."

"Government" isn't just the federal government, it's state and local, too. If we want to understand the impact of taxation, we need to take that into account. Taxes are taxes, regardless of which govt entity collects them- they have the same effect on families' bottom line. Like this-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

Notice that the rate actually begins to decrease at the top 1%. What's not obvious is that within the top 1%, generally speaking, the higher the income, the lower the total tax rate becomes. That's because capital gains become the main source of income, and they're taxed at a mere 15% on the federal level. All the other taxes everybody pays shrink to insignificance wrt huge incomes.

Changes to the tax structure over the last 30 years have altered income distribution significantly, and the source of total income has shifted from work to investment, as well, all of which strongly favors the financial elite, the top .1% of incomes.

What I find unacceptable is that these guys will very likely pay a much lower total tax rate than people at the 50th percentile-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html?th&emc=th

 

[lupi]

"I can make a firm pledge,under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax. Not your payroll tax. Not your capital gains taxes. Not any of your taxes."

Did you read his lips?

I got $1000 less back this year, that liar.

 

[Stefan Payne]

Many European countries impose a VAT, which taxes the value that is added at each stage of production of certain commodities. It could apply, for instance, to raw products delivered to a mill, the mill's production work and so on up the line to the retailer.

Well, no
The VAT is only paid by private end users, not manufacturers.

Oh and there are (in some countrys) 2 sets of VATs: one lower for 'daily use products' like food and papers/magazines (horses count as food).

Some countrys also have a luxory tax, like the skandinavians have, for cars (about 100&#37...

Oh and some things are a little 'strange' for example if you'll go to McDonalds and buy a burger.
If you'll eat it in the restaurant it's taxed with the full set (19%), if you'll take it with you, the reduced tax applies, though the price stays the same...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The reason I suggest that Obama would of course never support a flat tax is because a flat tax is an alternative to a progressive tax. I doubt any conservative would disagree with me on this - that Obama would never support a flat tax. Anyone, my point was that during the campaign he played neutral when asked about a flat tax just like he is now playing neutral when asked about the VAT. Yet we can be pretty certain he doesn't support a flat tax.

- wolf

I agree that this isn't supporting a VAT tax, however Obama was not neutral when campaigning about increased taxes. Since he had a pretty good idea what the agenda during his Presidency would be (it's not like the party agenda was hidden from him) he either was a compete idiot with finances or lying.

That being the case, I don't believe or disbelieve what Obama says, because he's proved a capable politician, and I use that in the most disparaging way possible.

He'll say what is required. I'll pay more attention to what happens than what is said.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

"Government" isn't just the federal government, it's state and local, too.

Gee, thanks, I would have NEVER thought of that.

If we want to understand the impact of taxation, we need to take that into account. Taxes are taxes, regardless of which govt entity collects them- they have the same effect on families' bottom line. Like this-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

Notice that the rate actually begins to decrease at the top 1%. What's not obvious is that within the top 1%, generally speaking, the higher the income, the lower the total tax rate becomes. That's because capital gains become the main source of income, and they're taxed at a mere 15% on the federal level. All the other taxes everybody pays shrink to insignificance wrt huge incomes.

Changes to the tax structure over the last 30 years have altered income distribution significantly, and the source of total income has shifted from work to investment, as well, all of which strongly favors the financial elite, the top .1% of incomes.

What I find unacceptable is that these guys will very likely pay a much lower total tax rate than people at the 50th percentile-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html?th&emc=th

We need a flat tax rather than an income tax. And before you say "That will hurt the poor more!", allowances can be made for them. I am more upset at the people getting back more in refunds than they had withheld during the year. That is ridiculous.

 

[dmcowen674]

The VAT is only paid by private end users, not manufacturers.

Oh and there are (in some countrys) 2 sets of VATs: one lower for 'daily use products' like food and papers/magazines (horses count as food).

Some countrys also have a luxory tax, like the skandinavians have, for cars (about 100%)...

Oh and some things are a little 'strange' for example if you'll go to McDonalds and buy a burger.

If you'll eat it in the restaurant it's taxed with the full set (19%), if you'll take it with you, the reduced tax applies, though the price stays the same...

Well the VAT is not even in effect yet and it is a success.

Not only are McDonald's burgers considered manufactured but now called a Luxury.

 

[senseamp]

Progressives need to stand up to VAT, Obama should stop adopting right wing ideas like funding government through regressive sales taxes.

 

[Kappo]

Gee, thanks, I would have NEVER thought of that.



We need a flat tax rather than an income tax. And before you say "That will hurt the poor more!", allowances can be made for them. I am more upset at the people getting back more in refunds than they had withheld during the year. That is ridiculous.

Not to mention, what makes an economy thrive more than anything? People having money.

But then the government would have to do things like us little folks do, like spend less, shop around, and save for the things they want. We can't be having that!

 

[dmcowen674]

David Cowen exhibits a dangerous level of what I would call "bitter envy". Someone else has something, you think you deserve it and want it instead, and if you can't have it they shouldn't have it either.

It is disgustingly destructive to societies.

This is great. You rich Republicans touted a bogus line of Trickle Down economics for years, now that the tide is turned I call it Trickle Up Economics and you guys call it "dangerous".

Like I said the best thing for you guys is if you don't like it you are free to leave otherwise, too bad, suck it up and about time you pay your fair share.

There's your real Trickle Down economics, listening to the sound of the change coming out of your pockets.

Cha Ching baby Go Messiah Go :thumbsup:

 

[SparkyJJO]

This is great. You rich Republicans touted a bogus line of Trickle Down economics for years, now that the tide is turned I call it Trickle Up Economics and you guys call it "dangerous".

Like I said the best thing for you guys is if you don't like it you are free to leave otherwise, too bad, suck it up and about time you pay your fair share.

There's your real Trickle Down economics, listening to the sound of the change coming out of your pockets.

Cha Ching baby Go Messiah Go :thumbsup:

There you go throwing around that "fair share" term again without actually stating what it is. Since you won't answer, I've come up with one for you. To you, "fair share" is anything that YOU don't have. If someone has more than you, they should be taxed for it to bring them down to your level.

That's what you appear to be saying. And you have yet to say otherwise. And that is basically communism, which doesn't belong here.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

There you go throwing around that "fair share" term again without actually stating what it is. Since you won't answer, I've come up with one for you. To you, "fair share" is anything that YOU don't have. If someone has more than you, they should be taxed for it to bring them down to your level.

That's what you appear to be saying. And you have yet to say otherwise. And that is basically communism, which doesn't belong here.

He won't answer it because Dave doesn't have an original thought in his head. Notice how I am on his ignore list in his signature? Do you know why? It is because I kept pressing him to provide proof of his ridiculous claims and he couldn't do it. In other words, he is a spineless coward that can only spew the typical far left BS. It is funny he blames the Republicans when he voted for them. I don't know why he is even allowed to post.

You've been around AT long enough, so you've probably read much of Dave's history. He is a perpetual failure and instead of manning up and saying "Oops, I messed up," he tries to use others as his scapegoat.