Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well my understanding from some reading a few years back that enforcing VAT was a problem in Europe. I have complete confidence in the ability of Americans to dodge taxes with the efficiency of anybody in the world.
As far as the votes go, I think the Right will attack it on simple merit (but their silence worries me when Bush's commission was looking at a new sales based tax) and the Left will attack it as being regressive.
Well, right now, the Republicans have no power at all and if he and Nancy want to push through a VAT, he has proven that he can do so by pushing through phase one of the move to Universal Health Care.
As for your point on the silence of Republicans regarding the Sales Tax, that silence was because President Bush was speaking about replacing the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax which would be a good thing in my opinion. Replacing the unmanageable regulations of the Income Tax with a simple sales tax (or better yet The Fair Tax) would be a good thing although I do not think it will happen. Good things do not come out of Washington.
Also from my understanding, the idea is not to replace the Income Tax with a VAT, but rather to supplement it. That is a huge difference between President Bush's plans and President Obama's in my book.
Immie
Immie, to my knowledge no one has ever seriously proposed replacing the income tax with a VAT or any other form of excise, sales or consumption tax. I would love to see a link to this.
In 2008, the corporate and personal income taxes in the US raised approximately 57% of the $2.5 Trillion in US revenues, 97% or more derived from taxation. (The government earns a small amount of interest income, income from the sale of assets, etc.)
What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
There is no US VAT at this time, so if one were to be adopted and to replace the income taxes on individuals and corporations, it would have to raise approximately 1.425 Trillion dollars. Remember, the VAT is a tax on the "value added" to a product as it moves from the raw material stage to the distribution stage. It is not a tax on sales to consumers and it is not a tax on services. It is not a tax on real estate. Obviously then, the identity of taxpayers and the distribution of the tax burden under a VAT vs. the current income tax would be as different as night and day.
I'm having a terrible time finding data on the percent of GDP represented by the manufacture of goods or sales of commodities. Maybe someone more skilled in economics can help. But you should note, a VAT on the sale of an incomplete product or raw commodity to a buyer might not be possible if the purchaser is foreign and the sale is subject to a tax treaty, etc. Without getting too complicated, not all transactions involving such sales would be VAT taxable...only a subset of them.
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the US GDP in 2008 included $110 Trillion from the sale of commodities and manufacture of goods. Assume further than $110 Trillion of these revenues were subject to VAT.
In order for a VAT to raise the revenues now raised by the income tax, it would have be imposed at a rate of 1.425. That may sound acceptable till you realize a complex good, such as a pc, would undergo at least 100 VAT transactions, and while each would not impose the tax on the value of the entire finished good, that cumulative effect would be crushing. Arguably, a pc would increase in cost to the direct consumer from $1000 to as much as $1,425.
Of course, the consumer would have more spending money with which to buy the pc. If he was an ordinary middle class taxpayer, he'd have about 25% to spend after income taxes were repealed. But would a 25% rise in income allow a taxpayer to acquire goods that have increased so much because of the VAT?
No matter how you slice it, a tax on income is the best way to raise revenue and distribute the tax burden among citizens.
Well my understanding from some reading a few years back that enforcing VAT was a problem in Europe. I have complete confidence in the ability of Americans to dodge taxes with the efficiency of anybody in the world.
As far as the votes go, I think the Right will attack it on simple merit (but their silence worries me when Bush's commission was looking at a new sales based tax) and the Left will attack it as being regressive.
Well, right now, the Republicans have no power at all and if he and Nancy want to push through a VAT, he has proven that he can do so by pushing through phase one of the move to Universal Health Care.
As for your point on the silence of Republicans regarding the Sales Tax, that silence was because President Bush was speaking about replacing the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax which would be a good thing in my opinion. Replacing the unmanageable regulations of the Income Tax with a simple sales tax (or better yet The Fair Tax) would be a good thing although I do not think it will happen. Good things do not come out of Washington.
Also from my understanding, the idea is not to replace the Income Tax with a VAT, but rather to supplement it. That is a huge difference between President Bush's plans and President Obama's in my book.
Immie
Immie, to my knowledge no one has ever seriously proposed replacing the income tax with a VAT or any other form of excise, sales or consumption tax. I would love to see a link to this.
In 2008, the corporate and personal income taxes in the US raised approximately 57% of the $2.5 Trillion in US revenues, 97% or more derived from taxation. (The government earns a small amount of interest income, income from the sale of assets, etc.)
What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
There is no US VAT at this time, so if one were to be adopted and to replace the income taxes on individuals and corporations, it would have to raise approximately 1.425 Trillion dollars. Remember, the VAT is a tax on the "value added" to a product as it moves from the raw material stage to the distribution stage. It is not a tax on sales to consumers and it is not a tax on services. It is not a tax on real estate. Obviously then, the identity of taxpayers and the distribution of the tax burden under a VAT vs. the current income tax would be as different as night and day.
I'm having a terrible time finding data on the percent of GDP represented by the manufacture of goods or sales of commodities. Maybe someone more skilled in economics can help. But you should note, a VAT on the sale of an incomplete product or raw commodity to a buyer might not be possible if the purchaser is foreign and the sale is subject to a tax treaty, etc. Without getting too complicated, not all transactions involving such sales would be VAT taxable...only a subset of them.
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the US GDP in 2008 included $110 Trillion from the sale of commodities and manufacture of goods. Assume further than $100 Trillion of these revenues were subject to VAT.
In order for a VAT to raise the revenues now raised by the income tax, it would have be imposed at a rate of 1.425. That may sound acceptable till you realize a complex good, such as a pc, would undergo at least 100 VAT transactions, and while each would not impose the tax on the value of the entire finished good, that cumulative effect would be crushing. Arguably, a pc would increase in cost to the direct consumer from $1000 to as much as $1,425 or more.
Of course, the consumer would have more spending money with which to buy the pc. If he was an ordinary middle class taxpayer, he'd have about 25% more to spend after income taxes were repealed. But would a 25% rise in income allow a taxpayer to acquire goods that have increased so much because of the VAT?
No matter how you slice it, a tax on income is the best way to raise revenue and distribute the tax burden among citizens.
Well, right now, the Republicans have no power at all and if he and Nancy want to push through a VAT, he has proven that he can do so by pushing through phase one of the move to Universal Health Care.
As for your point on the silence of Republicans regarding the Sales Tax, that silence was because President Bush was speaking about replacing the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax which would be a good thing in my opinion. Replacing the unmanageable regulations of the Income Tax with a simple sales tax (or better yet The Fair Tax) would be a good thing although I do not think it will happen. Good things do not come out of Washington.
Also from my understanding, the idea is not to replace the Income Tax with a VAT, but rather to supplement it. That is a huge difference between President Bush's plans and President Obama's in my book.
Immie
Immie, to my knowledge no one has ever seriously proposed replacing the income tax with a VAT or any other form of excise, sales or consumption tax. I would love to see a link to this.
In 2008, the corporate and personal income taxes in the US raised approximately 57% of the $2.5 Trillion in US revenues, 97% or more derived from taxation. (The government earns a small amount of interest income, income from the sale of assets, etc.)
What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
There is no US VAT at this time, so if one were to be adopted and to replace the income taxes on individuals and corporations, it would have to raise approximately 1.425 Trillion dollars. Remember, the VAT is a tax on the "value added" to a product as it moves from the raw material stage to the distribution stage. It is not a tax on sales to consumers and it is not a tax on services. It is not a tax on real estate. Obviously then, the identity of taxpayers and the distribution of the tax burden under a VAT vs. the current income tax would be as different as night and day.
I'm having a terrible time finding data on the percent of GDP represented by the manufacture of goods or sales of commodities. Maybe someone more skilled in economics can help. But you should note, a VAT on the sale of an incomplete product or raw commodity to a buyer might not be possible if the purchaser is foreign and the sale is subject to a tax treaty, etc. Without getting too complicated, not all transactions involving such sales would be VAT taxable...only a subset of them.
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the US GDP in 2008 included $110 Trillion from the sale of commodities and manufacture of goods. Assume further than $110 Trillion of these revenues were subject to VAT.
In order for a VAT to raise the revenues now raised by the income tax, it would have be imposed at a rate of 1.425. That may sound acceptable till you realize a complex good, such as a pc, would undergo at least 100 VAT transactions, and while each would not impose the tax on the value of the entire finished good, that cumulative effect would be crushing. Arguably, a pc would increase in cost to the direct consumer from $1000 to as much as $1,425.
Of course, the consumer would have more spending money with which to buy the pc. If he was an ordinary middle class taxpayer, he'd have about 25% to spend after income taxes were repealed. But would a 25% rise in income allow a taxpayer to acquire goods that have increased so much because of the VAT?
No matter how you slice it, a tax on income is the best way to raise revenue and distribute the tax burden among citizens.
Are you saying the VAT would replace the personal income tax?
I'm thinking the VAT is in addition to the persoanl income tax.
A lot of countries sold the idea that VAT would replace the personal income tax to get the VAT passed, only to renege after the VAT was implemented.
Well, right now, the Republicans have no power at all and if he and Nancy want to push through a VAT, he has proven that he can do so by pushing through phase one of the move to Universal Health Care.
As for your point on the silence of Republicans regarding the Sales Tax, that silence was because President Bush was speaking about replacing the Income Tax with a National Sales Tax which would be a good thing in my opinion. Replacing the unmanageable regulations of the Income Tax with a simple sales tax (or better yet The Fair Tax) would be a good thing although I do not think it will happen. Good things do not come out of Washington.
Also from my understanding, the idea is not to replace the Income Tax with a VAT, but rather to supplement it. That is a huge difference between President Bush's plans and President Obama's in my book.
Immie
Immie, to my knowledge no one has ever seriously proposed replacing the income tax with a VAT or any other form of excise, sales or consumption tax. I would love to see a link to this.
In 2008, the corporate and personal income taxes in the US raised approximately 57% of the $2.5 Trillion in US revenues, 97% or more derived from taxation. (The government earns a small amount of interest income, income from the sale of assets, etc.)
What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
There is no US VAT at this time, so if one were to be adopted and to replace the income taxes on individuals and corporations, it would have to raise approximately 1.425 Trillion dollars. Remember, the VAT is a tax on the "value added" to a product as it moves from the raw material stage to the distribution stage. It is not a tax on sales to consumers and it is not a tax on services. It is not a tax on real estate. Obviously then, the identity of taxpayers and the distribution of the tax burden under a VAT vs. the current income tax would be as different as night and day.
I'm having a terrible time finding data on the percent of GDP represented by the manufacture of goods or sales of commodities. Maybe someone more skilled in economics can help. But you should note, a VAT on the sale of an incomplete product or raw commodity to a buyer might not be possible if the purchaser is foreign and the sale is subject to a tax treaty, etc. Without getting too complicated, not all transactions involving such sales would be VAT taxable...only a subset of them.
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the US GDP in 2008 included $110 Trillion from the sale of commodities and manufacture of goods. Assume further than $100 Trillion of these revenues were subject to VAT.
In order for a VAT to raise the revenues now raised by the income tax, it would have be imposed at a rate of 1.425. That may sound acceptable till you realize a complex good, such as a pc, would undergo at least 100 VAT transactions, and while each would not impose the tax on the value of the entire finished good, that cumulative effect would be crushing. Arguably, a pc would increase in cost to the direct consumer from $1000 to as much as $1,425 or more.
Of course, the consumer would have more spending money with which to buy the pc. If he was an ordinary middle class taxpayer, he'd have about 25% more to spend after income taxes were repealed. But would a 25% rise in income allow a taxpayer to acquire goods that have increased so much because of the VAT?
No matter how you slice it, a tax on income is the best way to raise revenue and distribute the tax burden among citizens.
Here's the link to "The Fair Tax" plan:
Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation
The plan is to replace the income tax with The Fair Tax not supplement the income tax. There is an excellent book written by Neal Boortz and John Linder explaining the reasons behind the plan, the problem with today's income taxation and the economics behind the Fair Tax.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410]Amazon.com: The FairTax Book (9780060875411): Neal Boortz, John Linder: Books[/ame]
A lot of lefties don't like the plan and they do raise some good questions. I on the other hand believe that those questions could be addressed if we cared to try. I think the Income Tax Laws in this country are obtrusive and beyond repair not to mention favorable to Congressional Bribe takers, those that will find loopholes and the corrupt. Therefore, I think the Fair Tax is the best way to go. Unfortunately, I'm not that good of a sales man and I can't seem to sell the plan to the intelligent lefties on this site.
There are other plans too like a "Flat Tax". Better than the income tax plan we have now, but in my opinion not as good as the Fair Tax Plan.
I had a copy of that book in my shelf... It is missing!
Immie
When they do teh VAT, and more money comes in they will find new entitlements to spend it on, it won't go to paying what we owe.
For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.
"I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn't something that the president had under consideration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.
After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is "not considering" a VAT.
He said his first priority "is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that."
President Obama said:When asked if he could see a potential VAT in this nation, the president said: "I know that there's been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It's something that would be novel for the United States. And before, you know, I start saying 'this makes sense or that makes sense,' I want to get a better picture of what our options are," Obama said.
The health care has been scored by the CBO as budget nuetral
Immie, to my knowledge no one has ever seriously proposed replacing the income tax with a VAT or any other form of excise, sales or consumption tax. I would love to see a link to this.
In 2008, the corporate and personal income taxes in the US raised approximately 57% of the $2.5 Trillion in US revenues, 97% or more derived from taxation. (The government earns a small amount of interest income, income from the sale of assets, etc.)
What are the federal government's sources of revenue?
There is no US VAT at this time, so if one were to be adopted and to replace the income taxes on individuals and corporations, it would have to raise approximately 1.425 Trillion dollars. Remember, the VAT is a tax on the "value added" to a product as it moves from the raw material stage to the distribution stage. It is not a tax on sales to consumers and it is not a tax on services. It is not a tax on real estate. Obviously then, the identity of taxpayers and the distribution of the tax burden under a VAT vs. the current income tax would be as different as night and day.
I'm having a terrible time finding data on the percent of GDP represented by the manufacture of goods or sales of commodities. Maybe someone more skilled in economics can help. But you should note, a VAT on the sale of an incomplete product or raw commodity to a buyer might not be possible if the purchaser is foreign and the sale is subject to a tax treaty, etc. Without getting too complicated, not all transactions involving such sales would be VAT taxable...only a subset of them.
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the US GDP in 2008 included $110 Trillion from the sale of commodities and manufacture of goods. Assume further than $100 Trillion of these revenues were subject to VAT.
In order for a VAT to raise the revenues now raised by the income tax, it would have be imposed at a rate of 1.425. That may sound acceptable till you realize a complex good, such as a pc, would undergo at least 100 VAT transactions, and while each would not impose the tax on the value of the entire finished good, that cumulative effect would be crushing. Arguably, a pc would increase in cost to the direct consumer from $1000 to as much as $1,425 or more.
Of course, the consumer would have more spending money with which to buy the pc. If he was an ordinary middle class taxpayer, he'd have about 25% more to spend after income taxes were repealed. But would a 25% rise in income allow a taxpayer to acquire goods that have increased so much because of the VAT?
No matter how you slice it, a tax on income is the best way to raise revenue and distribute the tax burden among citizens.
Here's the link to "The Fair Tax" plan:
Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation
The plan is to replace the income tax with The Fair Tax not supplement the income tax. There is an excellent book written by Neal Boortz and John Linder explaining the reasons behind the plan, the problem with today's income taxation and the economics behind the Fair Tax.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410]Amazon.com: The FairTax Book (9780060875411): Neal Boortz, John Linder: Books[/ame]
A lot of lefties don't like the plan and they do raise some good questions. I on the other hand believe that those questions could be addressed if we cared to try. I think the Income Tax Laws in this country are obtrusive and beyond repair not to mention favorable to Congressional Bribe takers, those that will find loopholes and the corrupt. Therefore, I think the Fair Tax is the best way to go. Unfortunately, I'm not that good of a sales man and I can't seem to sell the plan to the intelligent lefties on this site.
There are other plans too like a "Flat Tax". Better than the income tax plan we have now, but in my opinion not as good as the Fair Tax Plan.
I had a copy of that book in my shelf... It is missing!
Immie
This looks like fascinating stuff, Immie. Thankies for the link! I might read the book too.
All of you guys are wasting your breath debating something that will never even come to fruition. How do I know? WELL IF YOU MORONS HAD ACTUALLY READ THE FOOKING ARTICLE!
For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.
"I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn't something that the president had under consideration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.
After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is "not considering" a VAT.
He said his first priority "is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that."
Of course, you idiots read Drudge's big red letters and think something is true even though Obama has never said "VAT could be an option."
He DID say
President Obama said:When asked if he could see a potential VAT in this nation, the president said: "I know that there's been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It's something that would be novel for the United States. And before, you know, I start saying 'this makes sense or that makes sense,' I want to get a better picture of what our options are," Obama said.
Learn to fucking read, morons.
The health care has been scored by the CBO as budget nuetral
Don't confuse them with the facts when they've already made up their minds.
The health care has been scored by the CBO as budget nuetral
Don't confuse them with the facts when they've already made up their minds.
One might ask themselves just where did the numbers come from? Also was the Doc fix included? There is where you might find some facts about being budget nuetral.
Amen Willow!ya'll libruls owe my Charles Krauthammer an apology.
The health care has been scored by the CBO as budget nuetral
A VAT is one of the most efficient taxes.
But I can't see it. I don't think it would get through Congress.
I'd rather see them cut spending.
Does anyone else find Madeline's Blue Font to be incredibly annoying?
