VAT Coming to U.S.?

haha wasn't picking on you, just putting in a good word for those nice government employees that make sure all those bills get here more or less on time.

All the posts advocating government healthcare here are very valid and make perfect sense. Except they are predicated on this:



I just don't see our government accomplishing that. They have not shown me they are capable of competency or accountability in virtually anything they do. So for me, yes, I would like to continue to do it "the hard way". So as long as they allow me to have that choice, the Fools on the Hill can go and play Doctor all they want.

We're not just "out of money," we're deep in the hole with debt.

coco

Congress is running out of Apostles to rob from.

With the recent posts here, I feel a song coming on:

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

hehe agreed, teleprompters, prepared speeches written by someone else, they have all used this. I'm a centrist who's voted Democrat some elections, Republican others, and have listened to Rush sometimes for the sheer entertainment value. The guy is a loony. But he has been very effective at getting an audience out of shock value and the fact that everything he says, even if it's complete baloney, is said with such conviction that his fans accept everything out of his mouth as truth. It's a fascinating psychological entertainment, that false conviction and its affect on people. So you see phrases like "Teleprompter in Chief" pop up even here in the remote Second Life forums. Amazing.

I agree about having the choice. That way it keeps everyone on their toes. Private has to compete with public or add value in some way. And the competence and good will is key. I'm an optimist and hope this is a time where standards in character and accomplishment and accountability return to being a foundation of every day life.

only if you were ceded back to the British empire ... otherwise you can keep your mits off the tea

....you'd only brew it in Boston harbour again anyway.....

The teleprompter even has his own blog.

http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/

I'm not sure I follow. Low-income citizens would be more concerned with spending their money on basic needs, much of which would be tax-exempt. Since it would be a flat tax with very few exemptions (groceries and necessities for life), while the people with more disposable income would be more apt to buy things beyond the basic necessities. The only way a low-income person would end up paying a higher percentage in taxes is if he tries living beyond his means, trying to buy big-screen televisions when he should be trying to build a savings.

:0 as long as it would be done that way - my folks read the kinds of magazines where the flat-tax idea's been pumped by conservatives (and conservatives 'hiding' as libertarianist-leaners - which they always end up just sounding like extreme-conservatives to me ;0), but without any of the 'food/bills' exempt kind of leniancies. i explained that these forms of 'no exemption' flat taxes would greatly further burdon the poor of course on a daily basis... they 'never thought of that.' and this just as recently as this time, last year (prior election)... if mccain't had won instead, they might have just gotten that way the american conservatives love calling screwing the poor 'reform'... they might have called it the 'love and rainbows' tax reform or something (of course, now calling it 'fair tax' instead of 'flat tax' damn well does about the same thing, talk about loading the argument by 'renaming the subject' - another thing conservatives just love to do).

Last I checked, you cannot live on food and shelter alone. Transportation is considered a basic need, and is subject to sales tax under every existing US sales tax scheme. So are prepared foods, so a lot of time, the easiest to prepare meals are subject to tax despite being food and not coming from a restaurant. Healthcare isn't subject to sales tax, but that's not much solice with how expensive it is in the first place.



If that were true, then the rich would be even more inclined to spend money when there's no sales tax at all. Let's look around my state. Who is rich and actually spends the same portion of their income as someone who is poor? Nobody who doesn't wind up on the E! True Hollywood Story.

The rich don't stay rich by spending money, and the rich know that.



Never mind most states charge sales tax on college books and tuition. And like college students can find work in this economy: Nobody wants to work with someone who has a college schedule when they can hire some jackass with six kids full time for minimum wage, since the parent won't complain: They have at least seven mouths to feed.

As a European who has lived with VAT for a long time, it's amazing to see the frequent misunderstandings about how taxes work

Let's clear up one thing:

- The huge federal budget deficit left by your former president has to be paid by someone. That "someone" is you. Period. It will hit the lower and middle incomes simply because those incomes constitutes the majority of the economy. That's the facts of life. Money will not suddenly appear out of nowhere, YOU will pay it. Not "someone else".

If we have that cleared up, let's take a look at a very basic taxation principle:

"Taxes are more destructive the earlier in the economical food chain they are taken"

In other words: The more the money is allowed to work in the system before it is pulled out of the system as taxes, the better.

Meaning: even if it's tempting to tax the "big evil corporations" instead of the "normal" tax payers (usually to score points with the voters), it's counterproductive to do so.

Lets assume that we need to pull $1000 in taxes somewhere in the system to cover your federal deficit:

Pull $1000 from a "big evil corporation" as corporate taxes. What happens? $1000 less to hire new people. Or $1000 less for the shareholders to get as dividend and spend on consuming other stuff, or whatever they do with their money. Or $1000 less to invest in new equipment for the factory. And so on...

What happens if you keep those $1000 in the system instead of taking them as corporate taxes? They get spent on stuff. Or they get used to hire people who later spend their salary on consumer goods. That goods in produced by someone who pays taxes as well and who in turn buys stuff that is taxed... and so on. Far down in the chain, pull a few % in VAT. Those $1000 will have generated so much activity in the system that the VAT pulled out of it is distributed among a huge number of tax payers.

So, the conclusion is:

The more the money is allowed to work before it is being pulled out from the system as taxes, the better. Therefore, pull it out as late as possible. Less taxes "high up" in the chain (corporate taxes, salary taxes) means more money for consumption. Let the money work as much as possible before it is taxed.

YOU will pay for the deficit. You just have to chose how. You want money to work in the system to create jobs, production, services and other kinds of activity before it's pulled out of the system as tax? Or do you want to take the money out of the system right away, as corporate taxes or as taxes on "the rich"?

Your choice. Regardless, YOU will pay for the deficit in the end. Not "someone else".

:0 good posits by you, i would say - save for that, as a european, your 'rich corporations/people' are probably not as rich as america's 'rich rich people'. if you ignore the complete lack-of-balance in the scales of wages and inflation here, then you're missing an extremely vital clue to where a lot of of the financial rewards have gone in this country. most people's incomes have not increased - in fact in lots of cases has -decreased- - over the past 15-20 years. in the same time period, ceo pay has increased by a factor of - well take your pick of companies, anywhere from 10x-100x-???x. the scale is so far out of whack now, and ignoring the loopholes and disparitys - what, just for -their- sake?? it does the poor no good, nor our country.

as if 'rich' means the same thing everywhere - it doesn't. and there's no limit. but being poor does, and has.

yes, we all are already paying... but it'd be paid off a lot faster if we targeted the fiscal punishment towards those who had the lobbying and financial powers who actually made the mistakes.

One flaw right here...not all of that huge deficit was from the former president. All these bailouts and pet projects that are getting ramrodded through congress are making that deficit VASTLY larger.

Otherwise I agree the deficit has to be paid by the taxpayers. I just disagree in methods.

i agree..a lot of it all started in the 70's and every president from then till now are to blame..
mainly for letting things go on the way they have been instead of putting a stop to it..
other things like the failing the second it started social security only adds to it and will keep adding to it..
we are not going to see it paid off and our kids kids won't..

anyone thinking one administration caused all this that came to a head it's not..
just the housing market problems alone sparked back in 80's and 90's with people hammering for homes and going into debt only to have their mortgages gambled with..
Democrats and republicans can enjoy the blame on this together..

QFT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

U.S. president Increase debt/GDP

Carter Jimmy Carter -3.2%
Reagan1 Ronald Reagan +11.3%
Reagan2 Ronald Reagan +9.2%
Bush GHW George H. W. Bush +13.1%
Clinton1 Bill Clinton -0.6%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton -8.2%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush +6.9%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush +11.7%

just because you say it doesn't necessarily make it freakin' so...

just because you see one thing doesn't mean there is not a bigger picture going on..
it doesn't6 matter what they did in their terms..this is something that has been building since credit has been being abused and corp banks have been playing a second set of book and deregulated derivatives market..
this is all of them like it or not..

I said "necessities for life", not life's conveniences. I don't care how easy it is to heat up a pre-prepared meal, it is still a convenience compared to making something from scratch using raw ingredients. For the record, however: Even pre-prepared "convenience" foods aren't taxed.

As for transportation: There is no fundamental requirement that everyone must own a car. Most people in the very low income range live within easy walking distance to public transportation, which isn't taxed. Now, you could argue that public transportation in most locales is inadequate, and you'd be correct; but the reason this is so is because of this notion we Americans have that everyone must own a car, and so not enough people are using public transportation to keep it viable.Maybe not; but wealthy people still have far greater buying power than poor people. Specifically, a wealthy person, even if socking away 95% of his or her income into investments, still has more "disposable" income after basic needs are met.Here's a little secret: Your college expenses are tax-deductible! Even your textbooks!No argument there; but keep in mind why the economy is the way it is today: Because big, wealthy corporations made it their business practice to fleece the low- and middle-class populace, with predatory lending practices, flooding the market with credit cards for which practically anyone was approved, sub-prime mortgages... and the government did absolutely nothing to stop it.