CDZ Value Added Tax

[Darkwind]

Okay, Hit Me with your best for/against arguments regarding a VAT.

The problem is that large corporations like Amazon are able to find ways to hide their profits from the US Government. In fact, Amazon has a profit of $11 billion and they actually paid zero taxes. Meaning of course, that when the filed their taxes, their amount owed/paid reached a $0.00 number.

A Value Added Tax is one in which Amazon and other large corporations, would be required to pay a tax up front for the product/service they provide. This would be a tax that is not deductible from their overall tax burden and the entire amount would go to the Feds.

So, what say you all?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To begin with, your description of what a Value Added Tax (or VAT) is is wildly inaccurate.

A VAT is a tax that is imposed at each step in the production of a good or service, as the value of what is produced at that step is increased above what went into producing it. The end result is higher prices at the end product, with these taxes hidden in that price, concealed from the end consumers who bear the burden thereof.

It is a corrupt and deceitful concept, which can only be supported by a thieving kleptocrat.

Taxpayers are entitled to know what they are being compelled to pay in taxes. The entire effect and purpose of a VAT is to deny them this knowledge.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Okay, Hit Me with your best for/against arguments regarding a VAT.

The problem is that large corporations like Amazon are able to find ways to hide their profits from the US Government. In fact, Amazon has a profit of $11 billion and they actually paid zero taxes. Meaning of course, that when the filed their taxes, their amount owed/paid reached a $0.00 number.

A Value Added Tax is one in which Amazon and other large corporations, would be required to pay a tax up front for the product/service they provide. This would be a tax that is not deductible from their overall tax burden and the entire amount would go to the Feds.

So, what say you all?

In fact, Amazon has a profit of $11 billion and they actually paid zero taxes.

Nah.

Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) Income Statement

Looks like they paid almost $1.2 billion in income tax.

 

[Maxdeath]

To begin with, your description of what a Value Added Tax (or VAT) is is wildly inaccurate.

A VAT is a tax that is imposed at each step in the production of a good or service, as the value of what is produced at that step is increased above what went into producing it. The end result is higher prices at the end product, with these taxes hidden in that price, concealed from the end consumers who bear the burden thereof.

It is a corrupt and deceitful concept, which can only be supported by a thieving kleptocrat.

Taxpayers are entitled to know what they are being compelled to pay in taxes. The entire effect and purpose of a VAT is to deny them this knowledge.

The good thing about VAT is that it will force many to go to barter and to used many things beyond what they do now.

 

[Toronado3800]

Okay, Hit Me with your best for/against arguments regarding a VAT.

The problem is that large corporations like Amazon are able to find ways to hide their profits from the US Government. In fact, Amazon has a profit of $11 billion and they actually paid zero taxes. Meaning of course, that when the filed their taxes, their amount owed/paid reached a $0.00 number.

A Value Added Tax is one in which Amazon and other large corporations, would be required to pay a tax up front for the product/service they provide. This would be a tax that is not deductible from their overall tax burden and the entire amount would go to the Feds.

So, what say you all?

The main problem is the government runs a deficit so it needs to collect taxes.

We can pay or have artificial entities like corporations pay.

Rich folks who donate to politicians love corporate money tricks, ask the ultimate insider Donald Trump.

So, it is difficult to cut back on government services, welfare to GM, aircraft carriers, welfare to farmers, welfare to poor folks and it is difficult to change the tax structure

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The main problem is the government runs a deficit so it needs to collect taxes.

You apparently don't know what “deficit” means, It's when government (or any other entity, for that matter) spends more money than it takes in. A government that did not run a deficit would still need to take in revenues (usually as taxes) in order to cover the spending that it does do.

I suppose it's possible, at least briefly, for a government to exist which collects no taxes or other revenue, but which spends money. That government would be running a deficit, equal to the whole amount that it is spending. I don't think it would be sustainable for very long.

We can pay or have artificial entities like corporations pay.

These “artificial entities like corporations” would have to increase the costs of their goods or services, to cover the tax burden. Which, in the end, means that it is we consumers who end up paying the tax, in the form of higher prices for the goods and services that we buy.

The idea that you can tax corporations instead of taxing people, without that burden ultimately falling on the very people from whom you purport to be sparing that burden, is nonsense, rooted in deep economic ignorance.

 

[sparky]

VAT philosophy dictates protecting domestic manufacturing at the consumers expense, the end game being domestic production will beat out foreign consumables, and economic bliss blossoms via domestic jobs.

This might have worked decades ago in conjunction with Clinton's nafta , but to institute it now is laughably futile since Ross Perots warning has come true.

~S~

 

[Toronado3800]

The main problem is the government runs a deficit so it needs to collect taxes.

You apparently don't know what “deficit” means, It's when government (or any other entity, for that matter) spends more money than it takes in. A government that did not run a deficit would still need to take in revenues (usually as taxes) in order to cover the spending that it does do.

I suppose it's possible, at least briefly, for a government to exist which collects no taxes or other revenue, but which spends money. That government would be running a deficit, equal to the whole amount that it is spending. I don't think it would be sustainable for very long.

We can pay or have artificial entities like corporations pay.

These “artificial entities like corporations” would have to increase the costs of their goods or services, to cover the tax burden. Which, in the end, means that it is we consumers who end up paying the tax, in the form of higher prices for the goods and services that we buy.

The idea that you can tax corporations instead of taxing people, without that burden ultimately falling on the very people from whom you purport to be sparing that burden, is nonsense, rooted in deep economic ignorance.

The deficit, in particular the interest on it, makes the government have to collect more in taxes than the services it provides.

People or corporations have to pay, either way, and part of the reason corporations exist to limit liabilities.

The path of where the money comes from is known to me btw.

But I'll play. If Trumpizon is taxed 99% for the joy of giving Goerge W a billion dollars for a new baseball stadium and W blows $250 million on domestically produced coke, $250 million on whores, $250 million on lawncare and $250 million on a baseball stadium how many tax dollars are wasted?

 

[Dekster]

Okay, Hit Me with your best for/against arguments regarding a VAT.

The problem is that large corporations like Amazon are able to find ways to hide their profits from the US Government. In fact, Amazon has a profit of $11 billion and they actually paid zero taxes. Meaning of course, that when the filed their taxes, their amount owed/paid reached a $0.00 number.

A Value Added Tax is one in which Amazon and other large corporations, would be required to pay a tax up front for the product/service they provide. This would be a tax that is not deductible from their overall tax burden and the entire amount would go to the Feds.

So, what say you all?

Sounds like you are talking about just another sales tax which I already pay on Amazon purchases. VAT are a bit more nuanced. A true VAT would work more like the timber company pays a tax for turning a tree into a log for the differential value between a tree and a log. The Saw mill would pay a tax on the difference in value of turning that log into lumber. The cabinet maker would pay a tax on the value created by turning that lumber into a desk. It is basically a supply-chain tax.

I am not opposed to them in theory. They could get mighty cumbersome to enforce though with global specialization and mixed-source inputs in so many products these days.

 

[westwall]

Okay, Hit Me with your best for/against arguments regarding a VAT.

The problem is that large corporations like Amazon are able to find ways to hide their profits from the US Government. In fact, Amazon has a profit of $11 billion and they actually paid zero taxes. Meaning of course, that when the filed their taxes, their amount owed/paid reached a $0.00 number.

A Value Added Tax is one in which Amazon and other large corporations, would be required to pay a tax up front for the product/service they provide. This would be a tax that is not deductible from their overall tax burden and the entire amount would go to the Feds.

So, what say you all?

And all taxes are passed down to the purchaser which gets you what?

 

[sparky]

poorer.....~S~

 

[Darkwind]

I ask because I'm trying to understand all the various candidates for the Democratic Primary.

Here is why I asked.

Andrew Yang, Democrat for President on Value Added Tax.

Value-Added Tax - Andrew Yang for President

 

[sparky]

• Generate a revenue stream that can’t be avoided by corporations who are trying to circumvent our taxation system

Yang has a better chance of getting hit by a meteor ~S~

 

[Picaro]

Tax stock and financial purchases the same as any other gambling enterprises. If you're going to have truly stupid taxes like taxes on inventory, then tax banks for their 'inventory' as well. Why do morons always think Wall Street should get all these subsidies and free rides for the wealthy and gamblers, then whine about the chump change spent on food stamps???

Ideologues on all sides are mentally ill or sociopaths, none should be listened to seriously.

If you want to babble about 'laissez faire', than start paying realistic royalties to government for mineral rights, the subsidized research on that tech that creates so much wealth, and remove the 'limited liability' scam for corporations and remove limits on short sales of stock, and all the other little bennies they've bought for themselves. If you want to own stock in a company, then as an owner you can also be responsible for making good its losses as well. Real estate should taxed to help pay for military spending and border controls; no sitting on huge tracts of land while waiting for your political cronies to run a freeway to nowhere through it any more and cashing in.

There are all kinds of ways to raise money and from those directly benefiting from our government, and it can raised without payroll taxes and punishing businesses who actually produce something as opposed to those who are merely parasitic and crooked.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax stock and financial purchases the same as any other gambling enterprises. If you're going to have truly stupid taxes like taxes on inventory, then tax banks for their 'inventory' as well. Why do morons always think Wall Street should get all these subsidies and free rides for the wealthy and gamblers, then whine about the chump change spent on food stamps???

Ideologues on all sides are mentally ill or sociopaths, none should be listened to seriously.

If you want to babble about 'laissez faire', than start paying realistic royalties to government for mineral rights, the subsidized research on that tech that creates so much wealth, and remove the 'limited liability' scam for corporations and remove limits on short sales of stock, and all the other little bennies they've bought for themselves. If you want to own stock in a company, then as an owner you can also be responsible for making good its losses as well. Real estate should taxed to help pay for military spending and border controls; no sitting on huge tracts of land while waiting for your political cronies to run a freeway to nowhere through it any more and cashing in.

There are all kinds of ways to raise money and from those directly benefiting from our government, and it can raised without payroll taxes and punishing businesses who actually produce something as opposed to those who are merely parasitic and crooked.

Why do morons always think Wall Street should get all these subsidies and free rides for the wealthy and gamblers, then whine about the chump change spent on food stamps???

Which subsidies and free rides are you talking about?
$70 billion in 2017 on SNAP etc. is chump change?

If you want to babble about 'laissez faire', than start paying realistic royalties to government for mineral rights

What is the current royalty? What would be a realistic royalty?

the subsidized research on that tech that creates so much wealth

What subsidized research?

and remove limits on short sales of stock

What limits?

 

[Toro]

A VAT is a more efficient sales tax. It's why most economists prefer a VAT over most other taxes.

How the Value Added Tax Works

 

[Blues Man]

Okay, Hit Me with your best for/against arguments regarding a VAT.

The problem is that large corporations like Amazon are able to find ways to hide their profits from the US Government. In fact, Amazon has a profit of $11 billion and they actually paid zero taxes. Meaning of course, that when the filed their taxes, their amount owed/paid reached a $0.00 number.

A Value Added Tax is one in which Amazon and other large corporations, would be required to pay a tax up front for the product/service they provide. This would be a tax that is not deductible from their overall tax burden and the entire amount would go to the Feds.

So, what say you all?

So you're willing to pay more for everything just so Amazon pays a little more tax?

I'm not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A VAT is a more efficient sales tax. It's why most economists prefer a VAT over most other taxes.

How the Value Added Tax Works

For the same of this discussion, I'll presume that the blatantly-deceptive example given here of the actual value of the tax is correct.

What this shows, and what I already said, I think, is that the tax is being collected at every step along the way. Everyone involved at every step has to collect the tax, and adds it to the cost of what is passed on to the next step.

At the end, using your numbers, when the shirt is sold to the final consumer, it includes a total of $2 in taxes, which are hidden from the consumer, so that the consumer does not know how much he's actually paying in taxes.

Compare this to a 2018 price tag. He takes it to the counter, and is charged an additional $2 in sales tax, bringing is total cost to $22. He knows how much the shirt actually cost, and he knows how much government took from him in sales taxes on that shirt.

By the way, a $2 on a $20 item would be 10%. i live in California, the state with the highest sales tax, and some localities impose a bit more above that. I don't think the total sales tax anywhere in California is as high as 9%. Even California wouldn't try to get away with imposing a 10% sales tax. At least not openly. That's the real intent, and effect of a VAT, to hide the tax so that consumers don't know how much they are being fleeced by it. And if you think a VAT, imposed in this country, wouldn't end up being a lot more than the 10% in your example, then you're a gullible idiot. That's the whole point of hiding the tax from the consumers, to be able to get away with imposing higher taxes than the public would tolerate if it was done openly and honestly.

As for a VAT being “ more efficient sales tax”, I think this is very obviously false. A sales tax is collected at one point, the final point of sale, all at once. A VAT is collected at every step, imposing the burden on every producer along the way to collect it. It's certainly more efficient to collect it all at one point, than to nickel-and-dime every producer at every step.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A Value Added Tax is one in which Amazon and other large corporations, would be required to pay a tax up front for the product/service they provide.

There is nothing at all “up front” about a VAT. In fact, it's very much the opposite of what most people understand the term “up front” to mean. It is a tax that, by design and intent, is hidden from those who ultimately end up paying it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A VAT is a more efficient sales tax. It's why most economists prefer a VAT over most other taxes.

How the Value Added Tax Works

For the same of this discussion, I'll presume that the blatantly-deceptive example given here of the actual value of the tax is correct.

What this shows, and what I already said, I think, is that the tax is being collected at every step along the way. Everyone involved at every step has to collect the tax, and adds it to the cost of what is passed on to the next step.

At the end, using your numbers, when the shirt is sold to the final consumer, it includes a total of $2 in taxes, which are hidden from the consumer, so that the consumer does not know how much he's actually paying in taxes.

Compare this to a 2018 price tag. He takes it to the counter, and is charged an additional $2 in sales tax, bringing is total cost to $22. He knows how much the shirt actually cost, and he knows how much government took from him in sales taxes on that shirt.

By the way, a $2 on a $20 item would be 10%. i live in California, the state with the highest sales tax, and some localities impose a bit more above that. I don't think the total sales tax anywhere in California is as high as 9%. Even California wouldn't try to get away with imposing a 10% sales tax. At least not openly. That's the real intent, and effect of a VAT, to hide the tax so that consumers don't know how much they are being fleeced by it. And if you think a VAT, imposed in this country, wouldn't end up being a lot more than the 10% in your example, then you're a gullible idiot. That's the whole point of hiding the tax from the consumers, to be able to get away with imposing higher taxes than the public would tolerate if it was done openly and honestly.

As for a VAT being “ more efficient sales tax”, I think this is very obviously false. A sales tax is collected at one point, the final point of sale, all at once. A VAT is collected at every step, imposing the burden on every producer along the way to collect it. It's certainly more efficient to collect it all at one point, than to nickel-and-dime every producer at every step.

As for a VAT being “ more efficient sales tax”, I think this is very obviously false. A sales tax is collected at one point, the final point of sale, all at once. A VAT is collected at every step, imposing the burden on every producer along the way to collect it.

It's more efficient from the viewpoint of the collector. Reduces tax evasion.