Value Added Tax should help mend the economy

[tinfoil]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/61783-pelosi-says-new-tax-is-on-the-table

Thanks, democrats.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I think adding a VAT or and LVT on top of whatever you have left after budget cuts would be a reasonable way to balance the budget. Balancing the budget, however, is not our immediate priority...

[belme1201]

LOL not a peep from the demotards

Why the Hell does a VAT tax have to do only with Democrats?

[Cancel10]

I thought VAT was a republican mantra?

If it replaces the income tax, yes. But that's not what Pelosi is proposing. She wants to create a VAT alongside the income tax, which would also be alongside the Cap & Tax, which means the middle class is FUCKED.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If it replaces the income tax, yes. But that's not what Pelosi is proposing. She wants to create a VAT alongside the income tax, which would also be alongside the Cap & Tax, which means the middle class is FUCKED.



Replacing the income tax with a VAT would be economic lunacy and would worsen our budget crisis. Adding it along to the income tax would be a sensible move.

[Cancel10]

Replacing the income tax with a VAT would be economic lunacy and would worsen our budget crisis.

Replacing the income tax with a 10% VAT and slashing 1 trillion dollars in wasteful spending would be a good start.


Adding it along to the income tax would be a sensible move.

How will more taxes help the economy? You're either insane or retarded, I'm not sure which.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Replacing the income tax with a 10% VAT and slashing 1 trillion dollars in wasteful spending would be a good start.


1. A 10% VAT tax wouldn't fund a rat's ass. The current income tax, PLUS a 10% VAT, WITHOUT the added levels of spending added by the stimulus, would COVER the deficit.

2. There isn't 1 trillion dollars in wasteful spending. To cut 1 trillion you'd have to eliminate either the military or the other half of discretionary spending.



How will more taxes help the economy?

Did I say more taxes will help the economy? A realistic amount of taxation relative to the size of the government is simply a necessity. A business shouldn't consume more than it spends; neither should a nation.

[Socrtease]

Replacing the income tax with a VAT would be economic lunacy and would worsen our budget crisis. Adding it along to the income tax would be a sensible move.Yes because what we need is one more fucking tax in this country. I swear lefties have never seen a problem then couldn't tax their way into deeper.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yes because what we need is one more fucking tax in this country. I swear lefties have never seen a problem then couldn't tax their way into deeper.

Again, the right always responds emotionally, not intellectually.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Right wing thinking on the issue of taxation and government spending seems to be magical. Let's go to a fairy tale land where we can spend as much as we want, with no taxation, and all we have to do is reference some vaguely defined "government waste". If we're desperate we will do the always popular 70% cut to every single part of government. Anything vague that doesn't require us to actually finger anything specific is good.

Clearly the government is doing nothing to eliminate waste, because the government would never want all that free, easy to find "waste" money flying around for things like evil government programs that help feed the poor.



Taxation should equal government spending. End of story.

[Topspin]

a vat has zero chance of passing.
And if cons are smart they will plaster fox with Pelosi supporting any tax on top of what we have.
Folks watergerber has a burger flipping job. I don't see any 30 somethings with 3 kids asking for more taxes.

[DamnYankee]

Hopefully this will further the debate on the FAIR TAX, which is essentially a VAT. Pelosi brings up a good point about putting us on a level playing field with Europe. However in order to be truly level, the FAIR TAX must replace the current system completely.

What Pelosi doesn't appear to realize is that the FAIR TAX would eliminate a tremendous amount of influence that Congress has on restricting freedom. She would lose power, and since her goal is to gain power, she obviously has some kind of scheme envisioned to tax us both ways.

[tinfoil]

Right wing thinking on the issue of taxation and government spending seems to be magical. Let's go to a fairy tale land where we can spend as much as we want, with no taxation, and all we have to do is reference some vaguely defined "government waste". If we're desperate we will do the always popular 70% cut to every single part of government. Anything vague that doesn't require us to actually finger anything specific is good.

Clearly the government is doing nothing to eliminate waste, because the government would never want all that free, easy to find "waste" money flying around for things like evil government programs that help feed the poor.



Taxation should equal government spending. End of story.

LOL from the dork who supports taxing into a surplus

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Hopefully this will further the debate on the FAIR TAX, which is essentially a VAT. Pelosi brings up a good point about putting us on a level playing field with Europe. However in order to be truly level, the FAIR TAX must replace the current system completely.

Most nations in the world operate a VAT on top of a progressive income tax.

Pelosi's point was that in America, corporations pay for healthcare, and that cost is added on when they ship parts worldwide. In Europe, the government pays with healthcare through a VAT. The VAT is refunded upon export (to avoid double taxation), and so they do not have that component cost.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Most nations in the world operate a VAT on top of a progressive income tax.

If a majority ate poop, would you take a bite?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LOL from the dork who supports taxing into a surplus

Taxation should be whatever it takes to completely fund the level of government you want.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If a majority ate poop, would you take a bite?

It wasn't an argumentum ad popularem. I was just pointing out that he was incorrect in his claim that only through eliminating the income tax would we be on an even playing field. Anyone who's not making a billion dollars a year should oppose the 40% VAT it would require to fund federal discretionary spending through a consumption tax.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

a vat has zero chance of passing.
And if cons are smart they will plaster fox with Pelosi supporting any tax on top of what we have.
Folks watergerber has a burger flipping job. I don't see any 30 somethings with 3 kids asking for more taxes.

Yes, because the 30 year old wants to pass on that taxes he should have paid to his 3 kids.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Taxation should be whatever it takes to completely fund the level of government you want.

government operations should be retstrained to operate on a level of taxation that does not destroy the economy, or human lives.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

government operations should be retstrained to operate on a level of taxation that does not destroy the economy, or human lives.

If government money is well spent it doesn't hurt the economy. Private money badly spent hurts the economy just as much as government money badly spent. In America, sure, we don't pay the extra 10% taxation required to have UHC. Instead, we pay 15% of our income to cover just the poor and middle class, and leave the poor out to dry. Sounds like a good trade off to me! It lowers our taxes so it must be good for the economy!

The most damaging myth in America, that will eventually lead to our end, is the myth of the societal black hole; the myth that money spent by society at large somehow goes into some great black hole. When the opposite is actually true.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

If government money is well spent it doesn't hurt the economy. Private money badly spent hurts the economy just as much as government money badly spent. In America, sure, we don't pay the extra 10% taxation required to have UHC. Instead, we pay 15% of our income to cover 80% of the population.

Government money is poorly spent, as a rule. The money is used to strengthen hierarchies of cronyism, MORE SO than the private sector even.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Government money is poorly spent, as a rule.

That's just the delusion you operate under, that the noahide corporate masters at large have implanted in you.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

That's just the delusion you operate under, that the noahide corporate masters at large have implanted in you.

No it's not.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Only through an overpowerful government could banks get trillions in bailouts for destroying our economy.

Additionally, a vat tax is the most regressive tax imaginable.

[tinfoil]

That's just the delusion you operate under, that the noahide corporate masters at large have implanted in you.
You wouldn't know it if it was beaten into your head with a $600 hammer

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The military-industrial complex is in my crosshairs. It will be destroyed.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No it's not.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Only through an overpowerful government could banks get trillions in bailouts for destroying our economy.

Additionally, a vat tax is the most regressive tax imaginable.

A head tax is the most regressive tax imaginable.

[uscitizen]

A value added tax is just a national sales tax.
Just sling a fancy sounding name on it and some suck it up like candy.


In a recession people are not buying much so it would bring in little.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

A value added tax is just a national sales tax.

It is a fairer version of a sales tax, since it taxes the whole pipeline equally.


Just sling a fancy sounding name on it and some suck it up like candy.

Not much you can do to make a tax sound like candy.


In a recession people are not buying much so it would bring in little.

The VAT would be a useful tool to bring balance the budget (if income taxes simply can't be raised), but as I said before, no one is proposing doing this in the middle of the recession. Income tax reciepts are also down sharply.

[uscitizen]

"Not much you can do to make a tax sound like candy"

Tell me what value it adds to a product I buy?

[tinfoil]

but as I said before, no one is proposing doing this in the middle of the recession. Income tax reciepts are also down sharply.

first sentence of the fucking article:
A new value-added tax (VAT) is "on the table" to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.

[tinfoil]

"Not much you can do to make a tax sound like candy"

Tell me what value it adds to a product I buy?

it doesn't add value. it taxes value that's been added

[FUCK THE POLICE]

"Not much you can do to make a tax sound like candy"

Tell me what value it adds to a product I buy?

It subtracts value from it.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

first sentence of the fucking article:
A new value-added tax (VAT) is "on the table" to help the U.S. address its fiscal liabilities, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday night.

LOL. On the table in 2012. Oooops, 2013.

[Damocles]

A head tax is the most regressive tax imaginable.
Not even close. Imagine if they taxed only things that poor people use... That would be more regressive than a head tax as rich people wouldn't pay any taxes. Or you could tax incomes below a certain level, and increase the tax as you went down...

The "most regressive tax" proposed seriously is Cap and Trade as costs will be passed to consumers and the poorest among us will suffer the most and pay the larger sum of their income to pay for such an inflationary taxation.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not even close. Imagine if they taxed only things that poor people use... That would be more regressive than a head tax as rich people wouldn't pay any taxes. Or you could tax incomes below a certain level, and increase the tax as you went down...

Well I was meaning non-utterly absurd taxes. Margaret Thatcher actually introduced a head tax in Britian - this is what lead to the downfall of her government. It was one of Britians finest moments.


The "most regressive tax" proposed seriously is Cap and Trade as costs will be passed to consumers and the poorest among us will suffer the most and pay the larger sum of their income to pay for such an inflationary taxation.

Since most of the "tax" goes to regulated utilities and reduces bills, it's mostly made up for.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And of course I'd like to point out that the regressiveness of carbon taxes is obviously not a desirable trait, and should be accounted for through tax cuts elsewhere.

[Damocles]

Well I was meaning non-utterly absurd taxes. Margaret Thatcher actually introduced a head tax in Britian - this is what lead to the downfall of her government. It was one of Britians finest moments.



Since most of the "tax" goes to regulated utilities and reduces bills, it's mostly made up for.
"mostly" made up for?

And no, it isn't. It is inflationary, causing everything to be more expensive. The companies that pay more pass that cost to the consumers, the consumers that spend a higher portion of their income just to survive will be the most effected. It is regressive taxation in reality.

[Damocles]

And of course I'd like to point out that the regressiveness of carbon taxes is obviously not a desirable trait, and should be accounted for through tax cuts elsewhere.
LOL. In what way? A company who has to pay for such taxation will pass that cost to the consumers, taxing their energy use is simply the most regressive form of proposed taxation available today. Higher costs in gasoline = higher prices at the grocery store. Period. Those who can least afford it will have a higher cost of living, it is how corporate taxes always effect people. Corporate taxes in any form are a form of hidden sales taxes.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Hopefully this will further the debate on the FAIR TAX, which is essentially a VAT. Pelosi brings up a good point about putting us on a level playing field with Europe. However in order to be truly level, the FAIR TAX must replace the current system completely.

What Pelosi doesn't appear to realize is that the FAIR TAX would eliminate a tremendous amount of influence that Congress has on restricting freedom. She would lose power, and since her goal is to gain power, she obviously has some kind of scheme envisioned to tax us both ways.

I disagree, the fair tax simply opens the doors for more lobbying of politicians to make company 'x's' product exempt or deemed a necessity. It also would be regressive in nature.

The flat tax with a standard deduction is the simple fair way to change the tax code.

[belme1201]

If it replaces the income tax, yes. But that's not what Pelosi is proposing. She wants to create a VAT alongside the income tax, which would also be alongside the Cap & Tax, which means the middle class is FUCKED.



Can you name a country that has a VAT and no income tax?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LOL. In what way? A company who has to pay for such taxation will pass that cost to the consumers,.

Again, cap and trade is a regulation, not a tax.


taxing their energy use is simply the most regressive form of proposed taxation available today.

Hyperbole.


Higher costs in gasoline = higher prices at the grocery store. Period.

Of course. And you could very easily counteract that to a degree, spreading the economic innefficy out amongst the income brackets through lower taxes grocery taxes... etc...


Those who can least afford it will have a higher cost of living, it is how corporate taxes always effect people. Corporate taxes in any form are a form of hidden sales taxes.

I'm pretty sure corporate taxes have a different distortionary effect than sales taxes. Most taxes distorts the economy - a tax on income, of course, hurts business because people spend less, etc... etc...

The exception to this rule is the head tax and the land value tax, which don't distort the economy very much.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I disagree, the fair tax simply opens the doors for more lobbying of politicians to make company 'x's' product exempt or deemed a necessity. It also would be regressive in nature.

The farthest most European nations go is to have a lower rate for groceries. The ability to exempt certain products from the tax is, in my view, not a good argument against the VAT. The most effective argument against it, from my perspective, is the regressive nature of the tax.

I just don't think that Republicans would support adding a 45% bracket or something. And raising the marginal rate very far above what it is now would put us at risk of capital flight. So, from a political realistic perspective, I would support a VAT. We could cut about 250 billion, and institute a 5% or so VAT to get around 250 billion in revenue, and that would balance the budget (once spending levels return to what they were before the stimulus).

We could go less and have a more sustainable deficit of around 100 billion or so, though, which would be alright in my view.

[tinfoil]

watertard:Again, cap and trade is a regulation, not a tax.

LOL call it what you want. it's a cost of doing business, it'll get added to the cost of products and services.

I doubt you can explain WTF you're talking about because it's absolutely ridiculous.

Kids like you are what's wrong with america. Not only are you ignorant, you actually think people showing you where you're wrong are uninformed.

Classic!

[Cancel10]

1. A 10% VAT tax wouldn't fund a rat's ass.

It would yield at least $400 billion in revenue, and that is a modest estimate. Combine that with a 15% tariff on all imports (350 billion in revenue), and excise taxes (such as taxes on gasoline and cigarettes), and the Federal government would have more than enough to carry out its Constitutional duties.

As for the national debt, a Constitutional amendment should be passed which implements a 20% tax on all income over 1 million dollars, with three catches: (1) all revenue will go straight to paying down the debt; (2) it will repeal itself as soon as the debt is paid off; (3) the 16th Amendment will also be repealed as soon as the debt is paid off.


There isn't 1 trillion dollars in wasteful spending.

LOL

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It would yield at least $400 billion in revenue, and that is a modest estimate. Combine that with a 15% tariff on all imports (350 billion in revenue), and excise taxes (such as taxes on gasoline and cigarettes), and the Federal government would have more than enough to carry out its Constitutional duties.

I would rather abolish tarriffs. And I don't want the mandatory minimum government the constitution requires. I want a state with some meat to it.


As for the national debt, a Constitutional amendment should be passed which implements a 20% tax on all income over 1 million dollars, with three catches: (1) all revenue will go straight to paying down the debt; (2) it will repeal itself as soon as the debt is paid off; (3) the 16th Amendment will also be repealed as soon as the debt is paid off.

Good luck.



LOL

I'm just wondering because it's about half of discretionary spending. What are you going to get rid of? Food stamps? Roads?

And if you get rid of something like the Department of education, it doesn't really count because states are just going to have to raise taxes to make up the difference. Poorer states more so.

Before someone asks me to cut spending to lower taxes, I want to know the specifics. Saying something meaninglessly vague like "government waste" is not an acceptable substitute.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

watertard:Again, cap and trade is a regulation, not a tax.

LOL call it what you want. it's a cost of doing business, it'll get added to the cost of products and services.

I doubt you can explain WTF you're talking about because it's absolutely ridiculous.

Kids like you are what's wrong with america. Not only are you ignorant, you actually think people showing you where you're wrong are uninformed.

Classic!

This is not worthy of dignifying with a response

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And to fit the federal government to only 400 billion in revenue you'd need to chop off about 80% of all government spending. For the sake of absurdity, let's assume that you could realistically chop off everything but defense spending. You would still have to be making cuts after that.

[Damocles]

Again, cap and trade is a regulation, not a tax.



Hyperbole.



Of course. And you could very easily counteract that to a degree, spreading the economic innefficy out amongst the income brackets through lower taxes grocery taxes... etc...



I'm pretty sure corporate taxes have a different distortionary effect than sales taxes. Most taxes distorts the economy - a tax on income, of course, hurts business because people spend less, etc... etc...

The exception to this rule is the head tax and the land value tax, which don't distort the economy very much.
Again, it is a tax. Companies will have to pay more if they use the energy, this cost will be passed to the consumer, an artificial cost increase created by the government. The federal government doesn't have any power over local sales taxes in your area, and the cost increase will far outstrip those imaginary decreases. And corporate taxes are inflationary, just like sales taxes, and definitely regressive. It is by far the most regressive form of taxation proposed seriously today, and the democrats are toting the bath water for it.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

This is not worthy of dignifying with a response

No. You are simply unable to respond to it effectively, because your argument is based on word games.

[tinfoil]

I bet watermark gets crappy grades in statistics, economics, and math.

How do you look at a value-added tax and try to make the case that it's not a tax?

It's defined as a tax.

Unless we're allowed to log and deduct the VATs entire value against our tax bill (not taxable income) it amounts to double taxation

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I bet watermark gets crappy grades in statistics, economics, and math.

How do you look at a value-added tax and try to make the case that it's not a tax?

I said that cap and trade was not a tax. It's a regulation. Even if a regulation leads to higher costs, its a misnomer at best to call it a "tax".


It's defined as a tax.

It has tax in its name.


Unless we're allowed to log and deduct the VATs entire value against our tax bill (not taxable income) it amounts to double taxation

It's just two different taxes.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No. You are simply unable to respond to it effectively, because your argument is based on word games.

Actual arguments, honesty, and evidence? I know this is different from the conspiracy literature your used to reading, but its not "words games".

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Actual arguments, honesty, and evidence? I know this is different from the conspiracy literature your used to reading, but its not "words games".

No. It's word games.

[DamnYankee]

I disagree, the fair tax simply opens the doors for more lobbying of politicians to make company 'x's' product exempt or deemed a necessity. It also would be regressive in nature.

The flat tax with a standard deduction is the simple fair way to change the tax code.Either could be abused, but not so simply as the current system. The flat tax doesn't address the level playing filed issue.