Value Added Tax???

Bittermark said:
The Fair tax calculates things differently than a normal sales tax or VAT. And 17% is not 76% lower than 30%. The 20% rate proposed by the fair tax does indeed come out to 30% using the non tax-inclusive method.

You could fund the government with a 17% flat tax as well. But, again, if you had the option, why wouldn't you put a 35% bracket on those making over 300k and lower taxes for the middle and lower classes? The middle class in America has it hard enough as it is.
Click to expand...


You better re-take sophomore high school math. (30-17)/17 = 76%.
 
Re-check my original wording and stop playing the percentage game. You're out of your league with that shit here.
 
AssHatZombie said:
vat tax is the most regressive tax conceivable because it's a consumption tax.

The uber rich cannot possibly spend the amount proportional to their disproportionate income.
Click to expand...

The solution is a rebate for lower income earners which is the course Canada has taken. Three or four times a year low earners receive a check from the Feds based on their previous year's income tax filing.

That's the beautiful thing about all this discussion regarding health care and deficits. From some politicians ranting about a debt crisis to Boehner spazzing out about armageddon because the bill was signed we have to remember dozens of countries have dealt with similar situations and the world did not end.

These are not unique, never before encountered, insurmountable problems although some politicians want people to think they are.
 
apple0154 said:
The solution is a rebate for lower income earners which is the course Canada has taken. Three or four times a year low earners receive a check from the Feds based on their previous year's income tax filing.

That's the beautiful thing about all this discussion regarding health care and deficits. From some politicians ranting about a debt crisis to Boehner spazzing out about armageddon because the bill was signed we have to remember dozens of countries have dealt with similar situations and the world did not end.

These are not unique, never before encountered, insurmountable problems although some politicians want people to think they are.
Click to expand...

no. fuck that. the middle class shouldn't have to shoulder this either.
 
Bittermark said:
The VAT wouldn't eliminate the IRS.
Click to expand...

Exactly why we shouldn't have it.

Just and FYI... The Socialists Marxists who had the bright idea of government-run health care, have ALWAYS had the VAT tax in mind as a means to pay for it. Don't be fooled into thinking this is some 'new idea' being considered to pay down the debt, it is part of the universal health care plan, and they knew a VAT tax would be required to fund it all along.
 
Dixie said:
Exactly why we shouldn't have it.

Just and FYI... The Socialists Marxists who had the bright idea of government-run health care, have ALWAYS had the VAT tax in mind as a means to pay for it. Don't be fooled into thinking this is some 'new idea' being considered to pay down the debt, it is part of the universal health care plan, and they knew a VAT tax would be required to fund it all along.
Click to expand...

A VAT wouldn't be necessary to pay for the health bill because the health bill raises its own taxes. Volker is talking about directly raising taxes to eliminate the deficit, and the VAT is apparently the way he wants to do that.
 
Bittermark said:
A VAT wouldn't be necessary to pay for the health bill because the health bill raises its own taxes. Volker is talking about directly raising taxes to eliminate the deficit, and the VAT is apparently the way he wants to do that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what he is saying... it's a fucking lie. The VAT tax has ALWAYS been on the table as a means to pay for health care reform, because the modest increase in top wage earners taxes, is NOT going to cover the additional cost of this massive plan, not by a long shot.
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, I know what he is saying... it's a fucking lie. The VAT tax has ALWAYS been on the table as a means to pay for health care reform, because the modest increase in top wage earners taxes, is NOT going to cover the additional cost of this massive plan, not by a long shot.
Click to expand...

That's not what the CBO said. Who do you think I'm going to trust, Dix? Dixie the Hysterical Dumbass from Buttfuck, Alabama, or the CBO?
 
Bittermark said:
That's not what the CBO said. Who do you think I'm going to trust, Dix? Dixie the Hysterical Dumbass from Buttfuck, Alabama, or the CBO?
Click to expand...

Considering the CBO has NEVER been accurate in projecting cost of ANY program, and also considering the CBO has nothing to do with Marxist Socialist policies and why they were conceived, I would say you are better off to believe me. But you do what you want to do, I just wanted to point out the facts to those who might be tempted to believe the lie about the VAT tax. It was ALWAYS on the table as a means to pay for HCR, that's how they did it in Europe, you see...
 
Dixie said:
Considering the CBO has NEVER been accurate in projecting cost of ANY program, and also considering the CBO has nothing to do with Marxist Socialist policies and why they were conceived, I would say you are better off to believe me. But you do what you want to do, I just wanted to point out the facts to those who might be tempted to believe the lie about the VAT tax. It was ALWAYS on the table as a means to pay for HCR, that's how they did it in Europe, you see...
Click to expand...

The CBO can only go by what is given to him.
 
Bittermark said:
What do you mean by accurate?

You're a retard. This discussion is over. You lost.
Click to expand...

Well what I mean by "accurate" is exactly what Merriam Webster means by it... The CBO has never projected an accurate cost estimate of any government program. Whatever it might be, it always ends up costing far more than the CBO projected. What part of that do you not comprehend?
 
TuTu Monroe said:
The CBO can only go by what is given to him.
Click to expand...

Correct, and generally, they only project 10 years out, because everything is based on projected GDP growth, and they don't know what that will be further down the line. It's already a "guess" based on current trends in the GDP, and it's almost never close. The HCR bill was carefully constructed to "look good on paper" and get a high CBO score, because most of the real costs of the program will not be realized the first 10 years.
 
WRONG!! VAT's were originally introduced in France in 1954...
Click to expand...

But don't you see? It's only 1965 NOW! That was only 11 years ago in Pinhead Time! We just now instituted Civil Rights legislation... didn't you see Nancy and John walking arm-in-arm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top