|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 13, 2010 9:02:09 GMT -8
Is that a mixed-metaphor? Well, anyway, in case you do not understand the VAT (in essence, a national sales tax) here is a good explanation of how it works. And also of why politicians like the idea so much. (Please note how a VAT works against one of the Democrats' most cherished concept. But that won't stop them.) www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0413-byrne-20100413,0,2134988.column AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 13, 2010 11:32:15 GMT -8
I am generally in favor of regressive taxes, but this is not the one. This would cost jobs, increase taxes more than stated, make us less competitive overseas and hurt us all in general.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 13, 2010 14:39:04 GMT -8
I am generally in favor of regressive taxes, but this is not the one. This would cost jobs, increase taxes more than stated, make us less competitive overseas and hurt us all in general. The worst of all possible worlds, in terms of taxes, anyway; the Income Tax stays and then the VAT added on top of that! Yipes! A world only a collectivist could love. What most worries me is that under the Democrats, the percentage of the U.S. economy controlled by the federal government always goes up and up. If one believes that the feds can spend the people's money better than than can the people, then one is happy with this trend. Since I don't, I am not. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 14, 2010 13:21:56 GMT -8
I would be in favor of a national sales tax. That way, those who spend more pay more. I would favor a scheme to address the regressive nature of a tax like this though.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 14, 2010 14:22:59 GMT -8
I would be in favor of a national sales tax. That way, those who spend more pay more. I would favor a scheme to address the regressive nature of a tax like this though. That could be done by exempting food and utilities. Maybe some other things could be exempted, but any new tax should be accompanied by the reduction or elimination of some progressive tax. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 15, 2010 8:32:50 GMT -8
I would be in favor of a national sales tax. That way, those who spend more pay more. I would favor a scheme to address the regressive nature of a tax like this though. That could be done by exempting food and utilities. Maybe some other things could be exempted, but any new tax should be accompanied by the reduction or elimination of some progressive tax. To garner my support, the VAT would have to replace the current income tax. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 15, 2010 12:43:51 GMT -8
That could be done by exempting food and utilities. Maybe some other things could be exempted, but any new tax should be accompanied by the reduction or elimination of some progressive tax. To garner my support, the VAT would have to replace the current income tax. Me too. But I don't believe the hordes of tax lawyers and the hordes of accountants will allow it. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 15, 2010 14:46:14 GMT -8
I will make that three thumbs up. Sadly, the Left is wedded to the idea that the "rich" do not pay their fair share. They will, reflexively, always want to raise tax rates on "the rich" However, the truly wealthy, such as Ketchup Lady and Bill Gates, have ways to keep their tax rates low. And, anyway, if you confiscated half of their many millions, they would still be loaded (Not that I advocate that!)
Of course, the truth is that the top 1% of U.S. citizens, who earn 23% of the income, already pay 40% of the income tax. but never mind that. Another consideration is that those who suffer most when tax rates on the "rich" go up are those who earn under a million dollars a year. Those folks are doing well, to be sure. They are not the super rich. They are in many cases people on their way up. Sure, to the guy cleaning up an office building at night who brings in $28,000 a year, someone making 100K or 200K a year seems rich. But few of those can just sit back and do nothing and maintain their life styles. The super rich, who always find ways to protect massive amounts of money, and who have enough pull to prevent serious rises of their tax liabilities. are relatively immune even to the most re-distributionist campaigns of the Left.
The Left will always fight any serious attempt to cut government spending, since it, via its political party, both believes philosophically in redistribution-ism as well as the political benefits of buying votes with taxpayer money. But at some point perhaps even Dick Durban, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk will realize that spending cannot continue to outrun inflation without turning D.C. into Athens.
Just as with General Motors, who foolishly (and the foolishness has to be shared both by management and labor) signed on to agreements that were ultimately harmful to the company, its workers, and shareholders, so the U.S. govt. has made promises that will be impossible to fulfill. I'm sorry, but this must be said; there is no was we will be able to tax ourselves out of this mess.
We will have to cut back on spending, which will ultimately mean that future retirees will be told to suck it up and save more for their own retirement. (I did not say current referees simply because I personally am already one of those; no, politically there is no way that people now over 60 will have their benefits cut, or at any rate not by much. But my kids, now in early middle age, need to expect the worst.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 15, 2010 16:17:10 GMT -8
That could be done by exempting food and utilities. Maybe some other things could be exempted, but any new tax should be accompanied by the reduction or elimination of some progressive tax. To garner my support, the VAT would have to replace the current income tax. That would be one way. |
|
