Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

[M14 Shooter]

You are forgetting GE and other US corporations.

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

I see you backed off your "10,000 richest Americans" silliness.
Good boy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.

Not only can they not vote, they, according to the left, should not have the right to free speech.

 

[georgephillip]

Sigh.

If you took every dime from everyone making over 250k/yr, you'd still have a $1000B deficit.

How do you suggest we take care of that?

We could start taking care of that by taxing the richest 10,000 Americans at the same rate as their secretaries.

If it's true the richest 10,000 paid $112 billion in taxes calculated at 20% of their income, then taxing the 10,000 at a 35% could raise another $ 1 billion in revenue.

The first change to make is to separate those who earn $250,000 year from those making $250,000,000 a year by lowering taxes on the former and raising taxes on the latter.

This is exactly where we get into a problem, that being, that when the income tax got started it was only supposed to apply to the veery wealthiest of the wealthy (and at a fairly low rate at that) However, history has shown that once you get that income tax camel's nose under the tent, it just keeps on reaching lower and lower down the income scale at higher and higher rates; The proponents of this latest idea admit they originally wanted to go after everyone making $250,000 and up; how long do you think any rational person believes, that once they got this, they wouldn't try to do that? I certainly don't; these people see taxation as a means of implementing a social policy of redistribution of income and wealth (why do they also love the "Death Tax"-because they hate the idea of anyone inheriting wealth, that's why!)

If you truly want something better, consider a value-added tax. Stop taxing wealth, and incomes, and tax consumption instead. The rich will still pay more of it (they have more to spend), but it gets rid of a lot of the cheating, inefficiency, and tax avoidance that is inherent in the present system, has a far lower cost of compliance and enforcement, and best of all, the people know what they are actually paying for government. It has the added benefit of taxing the "underground economy" those who deal only in cash, illegal income and so on, since when they spend the money they will automatically pay the tax. If the goal is truly funding the government, instead of social engineering, this would work better. Of course, liberals will never go for it; can't use that to appeal to the class resentment, jealousy and hate of their constituents, or try to play the role of Robin Hood.

"So what is a value-added tax, anyway? What it sounds like: a consumption tax on the 'value added' at each stage of production. Here's how that works: Imagine a $1 loaf of bread you buy from the supermarket with a VAT of 10%.

"You've got a farmer, a baker, and a supermarket in the production chain. The farmer grows the wheat and sells it to the baker. The baker makes a loaf, sells it to the supermarket.

"The supermarket sells the loaf to me. Each link on the production chain pays the government 10% of the price of its product minus 10% of the price it paid for the goods to make that product.

"Ultimately, the government collects a total of 10 cents on the $1 loaf. At the supermarket, I pay the bread price plus the VAT: $1.10."

Conservatives object to the VAT because it's an invisible tax that would enable government to grow bigger.

Liberals complain because its regressive nature hits poor consumers harder than others.

"Of course, a VAT could take years to set up and special interests would carve it up with exemptions, just as they have for the rest of the tax system.

"But there are reasons for both liberals and conservatives to support the VAT. Conservatives want a tax system with a broader base and lower marginal rates.

"Liberals want to protect programs like Medicare and education spending with new taxes that don't overburden lower-income families. A VAT would serve both interests."

Value-Added Tax: What You Need to Know - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

 

[georgephillip]

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.

Disenfranchised?

"Take GE, for example.

"GE has $36Bn in sales and paid $431M in taxes (15% of net profits) in 2009. They also paid out $9Bn in dividends and over $24Bn in 2008 and 2007 and in 2007 they bought back their own stock but, in those three years, they paid -(NEGATIVE) $900M in taxes! Are you feeling victimized yet?

" Does GE use our infrastructure?

"Do they use our public airwaves? Are they protected by our police? Is our army out there fighting and dying to protect them? Do they take money from our government?

"Do we educate their employees?

"This is the INSANITY of the US tax system."

 

[percysunshine]

When rich people start saying they are going to tax the rich, watch your wallet.

 

[MikeK]

Funny how the right didn't seem to feel this way about the unions. The right tried desperately to turn private sector workers against public sector workers by arguing those public sector workers have it, you don't so let's take it from them.

It amazes me how many right wingers either don't see or just refuse to see their own hypocrisy. Gingrich's recent flip flop on libya is a perfect example of the rights willfull obliviousness to their own contradictions and hypocrisy that permeates their entire party.

The irony is few if any of those who support the Gordon Gecko credo have ever earned more than $20k and they haven't a pot to piss in. Yet they come on like seat-holders on the Stock Exchange.

There is a simple explanation for this. They've all been brainwashed by the right-wing propaganda machine. That is not surprising because, as Josef Goebbels demonstrated, it is not difficult to impose a controlling influence on simple minds and you can get them to follow you to hell.

 

[JFK_USA]

Again folks. Someone makes 2 million a year, he takes home 1.2 million if he does no tax planning. Oh the horror I mean I think only taking home that, I would want to make 18K a year. WOOOOO!!!!!!

Seriously? Folks give it a rest with the punishing success, no one wants to be poor. If I could make 1.2 take home versus 18K, everyone in America would.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.

Disenfranchised?

"Take GE, for example.

"GE has $36Bn in sales and paid $431M in taxes (15% of net profits) in 2009. They also paid out $9Bn in dividends and over $24Bn in 2008 and 2007 and in 2007 they bought back their own stock but, in those three years, they paid -(NEGATIVE) $900M in taxes! Are you feeling victimized yet?

" Does GE use our infrastructure?

"Do they use our public airwaves? Are they protected by our police? Is our army out there fighting and dying to protect them? Do they take money from our government?

"Do we educate their employees?

"This is the INSANITY of the US tax system."

You realize, of course, that nothing you posted here addresses his point regarding disenfranchisement - right?

Surely your list of talking points has some response for what he said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again folks. Someone makes 2 million a year, he takes home 1.2 million if he does no tax planning. Oh the horror I mean I think only taking home that, I would want to make 18K a year. WOOOOO!!!!!!

Seriously? Folks give it a rest with the punishing success, no one wants to be poor. If I could make 1.2 take home versus 18K, everyone in America would.

Your point is...?

You can take -every penny- from everyone making >$250k/yr and you will still have a $1000B deficit.

Then what?

 

[percysunshine]

Again folks. Someone makes 2 million a year, he takes home 1.2 million if he does no tax planning. Oh the horror I mean I think only taking home that, I would want to make 18K a year. WOOOOO!!!!!!

Seriously? Folks give it a rest with the punishing success, no one wants to be poor. If I could make 1.2 take home versus 18K, everyone in America would.

Your point is...?

You can take -every penny- from everyone making >$250k/yr and you will still have a $1000B deficit.

Then what?

Soylent Green.

 

[The Gadfly]

We could start taking care of that by taxing the richest 10,000 Americans at the same rate as their secretaries.

If it's true the richest 10,000 paid $112 billion in taxes calculated at 20% of their income, then taxing the 10,000 at a 35% could raise another $ 1 billion in revenue.

The first change to make is to separate those who earn $250,000 year from those making $250,000,000 a year by lowering taxes on the former and raising taxes on the latter.

This is exactly where we get into a problem, that being, that when the income tax got started it was only supposed to apply to the veery wealthiest of the wealthy (and at a fairly low rate at that) However, history has shown that once you get that income tax camel's nose under the tent, it just keeps on reaching lower and lower down the income scale at higher and higher rates; The proponents of this latest idea admit they originally wanted to go after everyone making $250,000 and up; how long do you think any rational person believes, that once they got this, they wouldn't try to do that? I certainly don't; these people see taxation as a means of implementing a social policy of redistribution of income and wealth (why do they also love the "Death Tax"-because they hate the idea of anyone inheriting wealth, that's why!)

If you truly want something better, consider a value-added tax. Stop taxing wealth, and incomes, and tax consumption instead. The rich will still pay more of it (they have more to spend), but it gets rid of a lot of the cheating, inefficiency, and tax avoidance that is inherent in the present system, has a far lower cost of compliance and enforcement, and best of all, the people know what they are actually paying for government. It has the added benefit of taxing the "underground economy" those who deal only in cash, illegal income and so on, since when they spend the money they will automatically pay the tax. If the goal is truly funding the government, instead of social engineering, this would work better. Of course, liberals will never go for it; can't use that to appeal to the class resentment, jealousy and hate of their constituents, or try to play the role of Robin Hood.

"So what is a value-added tax, anyway? What it sounds like: a consumption tax on the 'value added' at each stage of production. Here's how that works: Imagine a $1 loaf of bread you buy from the supermarket with a VAT of 10%.

"You've got a farmer, a baker, and a supermarket in the production chain. The farmer grows the wheat and sells it to the baker. The baker makes a loaf, sells it to the supermarket.

"The supermarket sells the loaf to me. Each link on the production chain pays the government 10% of the price of its product minus 10% of the price it paid for the goods to make that product.

"Ultimately, the government collects a total of 10 cents on the $1 loaf. At the supermarket, I pay the bread price plus the VAT: $1.10."

Conservatives object to the VAT because it's an invisible tax that would enable government to grow bigger.

Liberals complain because its regressive nature hits poor consumers harder than others.

"Of course, a VAT could take years to set up and special interests would carve it up with exemptions, just as they have for the rest of the tax system.

"But there are reasons for both liberals and conservatives to support the VAT. Conservatives want a tax system with a broader base and lower marginal rates.

"Liberals want to protect programs like Medicare and education spending with new taxes that don't overburden lower-income families. A VAT would serve both interests."

Value-Added Tax: What You Need to Know - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

So what's the problem with a VAT? You haven't shown any reason it wouldn't work, or would be unfair.

 

[percysunshine]

This is exactly where we get into a problem, that being, that when the income tax got started it was only supposed to apply to the veery wealthiest of the wealthy (and at a fairly low rate at that) However, history has shown that once you get that income tax camel's nose under the tent, it just keeps on reaching lower and lower down the income scale at higher and higher rates; The proponents of this latest idea admit they originally wanted to go after everyone making $250,000 and up; how long do you think any rational person believes, that once they got this, they wouldn't try to do that? I certainly don't; these people see taxation as a means of implementing a social policy of redistribution of income and wealth (why do they also love the "Death Tax"-because they hate the idea of anyone inheriting wealth, that's why!)

If you truly want something better, consider a value-added tax. Stop taxing wealth, and incomes, and tax consumption instead. The rich will still pay more of it (they have more to spend), but it gets rid of a lot of the cheating, inefficiency, and tax avoidance that is inherent in the present system, has a far lower cost of compliance and enforcement, and best of all, the people know what they are actually paying for government. It has the added benefit of taxing the "underground economy" those who deal only in cash, illegal income and so on, since when they spend the money they will automatically pay the tax. If the goal is truly funding the government, instead of social engineering, this would work better. Of course, liberals will never go for it; can't use that to appeal to the class resentment, jealousy and hate of their constituents, or try to play the role of Robin Hood.

"So what is a value-added tax, anyway? What it sounds like: a consumption tax on the 'value added' at each stage of production. Here's how that works: Imagine a $1 loaf of bread you buy from the supermarket with a VAT of 10%.

"You've got a farmer, a baker, and a supermarket in the production chain. The farmer grows the wheat and sells it to the baker. The baker makes a loaf, sells it to the supermarket.

"The supermarket sells the loaf to me. Each link on the production chain pays the government 10% of the price of its product minus 10% of the price it paid for the goods to make that product.

"Ultimately, the government collects a total of 10 cents on the $1 loaf. At the supermarket, I pay the bread price plus the VAT: $1.10."

Conservatives object to the VAT because it's an invisible tax that would enable government to grow bigger.

Liberals complain because its regressive nature hits poor consumers harder than others.

"Of course, a VAT could take years to set up and special interests would carve it up with exemptions, just as they have for the rest of the tax system.

"But there are reasons for both liberals and conservatives to support the VAT. Conservatives want a tax system with a broader base and lower marginal rates.

"Liberals want to protect programs like Medicare and education spending with new taxes that don't overburden lower-income families. A VAT would serve both interests."

Value-Added Tax: What You Need to Know - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

So what's the problem with a VAT? You haven't shown any reason it wouldn't work, or would be unfair.

Yeah, like politicians are going to cancel the 66,000 page income tax and replace it with a one sentence VAT. Dream on.

 

[georgephillip]

You are forgetting GE and other US corporations.

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

I see you backed off your "10,000 richest Americans" silliness.
Good boy.

10,000 Americans (who buy elected Republicans AND Democrats the same way you and I buy newspapers) dodging $100 billion/year in taxes doesn't strike me as "silliness."

When the richest 1% of Americans "back off" from amassing an ever increasing share of national wealth, I'll do the same.

 

[georgephillip]

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%). That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.

Not only can they not vote, they, according to the left, should not have the right to free speech.

Corporate "free $peech" determines the candidates you "choose" between months before you step into the voting booth.

Or maybe you think corporations have too little influence on US politics?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

While President Obama capitulates to right-wing Republicans by extending tax cuts for the wealthy, some Democrats in Congress are pushing what is not only good policy -- but smarter politics. Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Jan Schakowsky in the House have sponsored legislation to raise taxes on millionaires -- rather than restoring the Clinton tax brackets for those making over $250,000. One Capitol Hill newspaper noted this deviates from where the White House currently stands, as it specifically targets the very rich. Moreover, it puts Republicans in a far more awkward position -- as they are left defending tax cuts for millionaires. There is a huge difference between rich people making $250,000 a year and those making $2 million a year, and the high upper-income tax brackets we saw in the 1930's and 1940's were likewise similarly targeted. Even in anti-tax states like California, voters have approved tax increases for millionaires -- which makes this legislation one of the most hopeful things to come out of Washington lately.

Do that shit, do that shit, do that shit, teah do that shit, lol.

No seriously, rightwingers can't defend millionaires against this when the majority of Americans, especially the middle class, are proportionally bearing a bigger brunt.

"Until 1963, the richest Americans paid over 90% of their income in taxes -- and it wasn't until Ronald Reagan that it dipped below 70% -- which makes the Sanders-Schakowsky proposals very modest, historically speaking. But what's interesting is if you look at who paid those high tax rates, who constituted as 'rich' was well above what $250,000 will get you today.

"Until 1965, the top tax bracket was for people who made over $400,000 -- and during World War II, the 80% tax rates only affected those making over $5 million."

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

You don't understand progressive tax brackets do you?

No one's entire income was ever taxed at 90%.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

While President Obama capitulates to right-wing Republicans by extending tax cuts for the wealthy, some Democrats in Congress are pushing what is not only good policy -- but smarter politics. Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Jan Schakowsky in the House have sponsored legislation to raise taxes on millionaires -- rather than restoring the Clinton tax brackets for those making over $250,000. One Capitol Hill newspaper noted this deviates from where the White House currently stands, as it specifically targets the very rich. Moreover, it puts Republicans in a far more awkward position -- as they are left defending tax cuts for millionaires. There is a huge difference between rich people making $250,000 a year and those making $2 million a year, and the high upper-income tax brackets we saw in the 1930's and 1940's were likewise similarly targeted. Even in anti-tax states like California, voters have approved tax increases for millionaires -- which makes this legislation one of the most hopeful things to come out of Washington lately.

Do that shit, do that shit, do that shit, teah do that shit, lol.

No seriously, rightwingers can't defend millionaires against this when the majority of Americans, especially the middle class, are proportionally bearing a bigger brunt.

"Until 1963, the richest Americans paid over 90% of their income in taxes -- and it wasn't until Ronald Reagan that it dipped below 70% -- which makes the Sanders-Schakowsky proposals very modest, historically speaking. But what's interesting is if you look at who paid those high tax rates, who constituted as 'rich' was well above what $250,000 will get you today.

"Until 1965, the top tax bracket was for people who made over $400,000 -- and during World War II, the 80% tax rates only affected those making over $5 million."

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

You don't understand progressive tax brackets do you?

No one's entire income was ever taxed at 90%. The top tax bracket was 90% that means that only some of a person's income over a specific amount was taxed at 90%.

 

[georgephillip]

If they are citizens and therefore forced to pay taxes, they they shouldn't have to pay taxes since they have been disenfranchised. You can't have it both ways.

Disenfranchised?

"Take GE, for example.

"GE has $36Bn in sales and paid $431M in taxes (15% of net profits) in 2009. They also paid out $9Bn in dividends and over $24Bn in 2008 and 2007 and in 2007 they bought back their own stock but, in those three years, they paid -(NEGATIVE) $900M in taxes! Are you feeling victimized yet?

" Does GE use our infrastructure?

"Do they use our public airwaves? Are they protected by our police? Is our army out there fighting and dying to protect them? Do they take money from our government?

"Do we educate their employees?

"This is the INSANITY of the US tax system."

You realize, of course, that nothing you posted here addresses his point regarding disenfranchisement - right?

Surely your list of talking points has some response for what he said.

"Explicit or implicit revocation of, or failure to grant the right to vote, to a person or group of people.

Surely you know how many corporate employees were denied their right to vote recently?

Corporate money determines which candidates appear on your ballot months before you step into the voting booth.

How much more corporate influence on US politics are you recommending?

 

[georgephillip]

This is exactly where we get into a problem, that being, that when the income tax got started it was only supposed to apply to the veery wealthiest of the wealthy (and at a fairly low rate at that) However, history has shown that once you get that income tax camel's nose under the tent, it just keeps on reaching lower and lower down the income scale at higher and higher rates; The proponents of this latest idea admit they originally wanted to go after everyone making $250,000 and up; how long do you think any rational person believes, that once they got this, they wouldn't try to do that? I certainly don't; these people see taxation as a means of implementing a social policy of redistribution of income and wealth (why do they also love the "Death Tax"-because they hate the idea of anyone inheriting wealth, that's why!)

If you truly want something better, consider a value-added tax. Stop taxing wealth, and incomes, and tax consumption instead. The rich will still pay more of it (they have more to spend), but it gets rid of a lot of the cheating, inefficiency, and tax avoidance that is inherent in the present system, has a far lower cost of compliance and enforcement, and best of all, the people know what they are actually paying for government. It has the added benefit of taxing the "underground economy" those who deal only in cash, illegal income and so on, since when they spend the money they will automatically pay the tax. If the goal is truly funding the government, instead of social engineering, this would work better. Of course, liberals will never go for it; can't use that to appeal to the class resentment, jealousy and hate of their constituents, or try to play the role of Robin Hood.

"So what is a value-added tax, anyway? What it sounds like: a consumption tax on the 'value added' at each stage of production. Here's how that works: Imagine a $1 loaf of bread you buy from the supermarket with a VAT of 10%.

"You've got a farmer, a baker, and a supermarket in the production chain. The farmer grows the wheat and sells it to the baker. The baker makes a loaf, sells it to the supermarket.

"The supermarket sells the loaf to me. Each link on the production chain pays the government 10% of the price of its product minus 10% of the price it paid for the goods to make that product.

"Ultimately, the government collects a total of 10 cents on the $1 loaf. At the supermarket, I pay the bread price plus the VAT: $1.10."

Conservatives object to the VAT because it's an invisible tax that would enable government to grow bigger.

Liberals complain because its regressive nature hits poor consumers harder than others.

"Of course, a VAT could take years to set up and special interests would carve it up with exemptions, just as they have for the rest of the tax system.

"But there are reasons for both liberals and conservatives to support the VAT. Conservatives want a tax system with a broader base and lower marginal rates.

"Liberals want to protect programs like Medicare and education spending with new taxes that don't overburden lower-income families. A VAT would serve both interests."

Value-Added Tax: What You Need to Know - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

So what's the problem with a VAT? You haven't shown any reason it wouldn't work, or would be unfair.

Would the VAT likely apply to Wall Street speculation?

"Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman and current White House economic adviser, said in April (2010) that Congress needs to consider a Value Added Tax (VAT) – a tax on various stages of production of consumer goods.

"A VAT of 17.5% is now imposed in Britain, and 20% is being proposed; while some EU countries already have a VAT as high as 25%.

"In Europe, at least the citizens get something for their money, including federally-funded health care; but that is not likely to happen in the U.S., where even a 'public option' in health care is no longer on the agenda.

"The VAT hits the lower and middle classes particularly hard, since they spend most of their incomes on consumables.

"The rich, on the other hand, put much of their money into speculative trades, and those sales are not currently taxed."

That sounds like it would widen the inequality gap in the US which would be unfair to 90% of Americans, to say the least.

Ellen Brown: Who Will Pay: Wall Street or Main Street?

 

[del]

Paul Hogarth: Tax the Rich? Tax the Millionaires!

While President Obama capitulates to right-wing Republicans by extending tax cuts for the wealthy, some Democrats in Congress are pushing what is not only good policy -- but smarter politics. Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Jan Schakowsky in the House have sponsored legislation to raise taxes on millionaires -- rather than restoring the Clinton tax brackets for those making over $250,000. One Capitol Hill newspaper noted this deviates from where the White House currently stands, as it specifically targets the very rich. Moreover, it puts Republicans in a far more awkward position -- as they are left defending tax cuts for millionaires. There is a huge difference between rich people making $250,000 a year and those making $2 million a year, and the high upper-income tax brackets we saw in the 1930's and 1940's were likewise similarly targeted. Even in anti-tax states like California, voters have approved tax increases for millionaires -- which makes this legislation one of the most hopeful things to come out of Washington lately.

Do that shit, do that shit, do that shit, teah do that shit, lol.

No seriously, rightwingers can't defend millionaires against this when the majority of Americans, especially the middle class, are proportionally bearing a bigger brunt.

you're lucky we don't have a stupidity tax.

 

[georgephillip]

"So what is a value-added tax, anyway? What it sounds like: a consumption tax on the 'value added' at each stage of production. Here's how that works: Imagine a $1 loaf of bread you buy from the supermarket with a VAT of 10%.

"You've got a farmer, a baker, and a supermarket in the production chain. The farmer grows the wheat and sells it to the baker. The baker makes a loaf, sells it to the supermarket.

"The supermarket sells the loaf to me. Each link on the production chain pays the government 10% of the price of its product minus 10% of the price it paid for the goods to make that product.

"Ultimately, the government collects a total of 10 cents on the $1 loaf. At the supermarket, I pay the bread price plus the VAT: $1.10."

Conservatives object to the VAT because it's an invisible tax that would enable government to grow bigger.

Liberals complain because its regressive nature hits poor consumers harder than others.

"Of course, a VAT could take years to set up and special interests would carve it up with exemptions, just as they have for the rest of the tax system.

"But there are reasons for both liberals and conservatives to support the VAT. Conservatives want a tax system with a broader base and lower marginal rates.

"Liberals want to protect programs like Medicare and education spending with new taxes that don't overburden lower-income families. A VAT would serve both interests."

Value-Added Tax: What You Need to Know - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

So what's the problem with a VAT? You haven't shown any reason it wouldn't work, or would be unfair.

Yeah, like politicians are going to cancel the 66,000 page income tax and replace it with a one sentence VAT. Dream on.

"Each link on the production chain pays the government 10% of the price of its product minus 10% of the price it paid for the goods to make that product."

Since any real world application of a VAT would involve major corporations trying to enhance their profits by externalizing as many costs as possible (think GE), enforcement of the single sentence above will require thousands of expository sentences and at least an equal number of public regulators.

Value-Added Tax: What You Need to Know - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic