You heard it here first

[boedicca]

As I've recently posted, the VAT is going to be put in place to squeeze taxes out of those who are now paying no federal income tax. IBD has a good editorial on this today:

In his remarks, he said a value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it had been in the past, and suggested it might be a way for the U.S. to escape its growing budget crisis.

"If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes," he said.

No doubt this is a trial balloon. Based on the $10 trillion in budget deficits expected over the next 10 years, this is one crisis the White House won't want to waste, as Rahm Emanuel would say.

Already, it's waged open war on the rich — vowing to take as much from those having $200,000 in income as it can. The 10-year budget plan submitted by President Obama in fact hits that group with $636 billion in new taxes.

But that's not even close to being enough to pay for the Democrats' reckless expansion of government.

As we've noted here before, Obama's new budget spends $45 trillion from 2011 to 2020. That's a 70% rise in spending from the previous decade. The only problem is, we're expected to collect only $35 trillion in taxes — and even that might be an overestimate, based on recent dismal economic growth.

So just going after the rich can't close that gap. The wealthy literally don't have the money. And even if we raised income taxes on everyone, which is highly unlikely, we would have to double current income tax rates to balance the budget, according to a recent Tax Foundation study.

So with deficits averaging $1 trillion a year through 2020 and spending soaring, where will the money come from?

Answer: A VAT. Only a VAT will give the government enough money to let it continue its out-of-control spending — which now seems to be the Democrats' main political goal.

Right now, the poor and the middle class pay virtually no taxes at all. In 2008, 49% of all households paid no taxes, new data show...

VAT Will Spell Anything But Relief - IBD - Investors.com


It's horrifying to see government spending increase 70% this decade over the last. The economy is certainly not growing at that pace - and the ranks of the unemployed are growing. VAT will make it worse by further dampening the GDP growth rate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sorry for not reading all 6 pages...has anyone confirmed that Obama is in favor of this? If it's just a proposal that's one thing...if it's more...I'm not voting for him in 2012.

I don't think Obama has mentioned this, but if it increases revenues, he is going to love the idea.

The ironic part is that it will lower revenue as sales go down.

REPUBLICANS introduced a national sales tax last year:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Ironically.

 

[FrankieGA]

It was called the Fair Tax Act of 2009, which essentially gets rid of the IRS, no federal Income taxes to be paid, and one National Sales tax across the board on goods. There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the basic gist of it.

So are you trying to compare it to the VAT tax, because if you are, you are way off base buddy

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was called the Fair Tax Act of 2009, which essentially gets rid of the IRS, no federal Income taxes to be paid, and one National Sales tax across the board on goods. There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the basic gist of it.

So are you trying to compare it to the VAT tax, because if you are, you are way off base buddy

I posted it in response to the poster who said a sales tax would lose revenue because people would spend less.

 

[The Rabbi]

It was called the Fair Tax Act of 2009, which essentially gets rid of the IRS, no federal Income taxes to be paid, and one National Sales tax across the board on goods. There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the basic gist of it.

So are you trying to compare it to the VAT tax, because if you are, you are way off base buddy

I posted it in response to the poster who said a sales tax would lose revenue because people would spend less.

No you posted it because you are a partisan hack who would rather score debate points than get to the truth.

 

[Xenophon]

It was called the Fair Tax Act of 2009, which essentially gets rid of the IRS, no federal Income taxes to be paid, and one National Sales tax across the board on goods. There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the basic gist of it.

So are you trying to compare it to the VAT tax, because if you are, you are way off base buddy

I posted it in response to the poster who said a sales tax would lose revenue because people would spend less.

No you posted it because you are a partisan hack who would rather score debate points than get to the truth.

Talk about stating the obvious...

 

[Samson]

I posted it in response to the poster who said a sales tax would lose revenue because people would spend less.

No you posted it because you are a partisan hack who would rather score debate points than get to the truth.

Talk about stating the obvious...

debate points?

We ain't got no points.

We don't need no points!


I don't have to show you any stinkin' points!

 

[Metzor]

I'll give you 2 points for that post.

 

[Samson]

I'll give you 2 points for that post.

F&L!!,

"That's what she said!!!"

 

[WillowTree]

That's what she said when the bed broke!

 

[Vanquish]

It was called the Fair Tax Act of 2009, which essentially gets rid of the IRS, no federal Income taxes to be paid, and one National Sales tax across the board on goods. There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the basic gist of it.

So are you trying to compare it to the VAT tax, because if you are, you are way off base buddy

I posted it in response to the poster who said a sales tax would lose revenue because people would spend less.

No you posted it because you are a partisan hack who would rather score debate points than get to the truth.

That's hilarious coming from you. I dont think you'd know the truth if it slapped you on the ass and called you Charlie.