[BoondockSaint]

"In a recent interview, President Obama wouldn't specifically rule out a value-added tax as one tool to help balance the federal budget. No surprise there. Because of long-term deficits, the VAT is gaining traction among economists and budget experts. Well-established in Europe and Canada, the VAT taxes consumption, taking a share of value added at each stage of manufacture and sale, "from raw material to a consumer's shopping bag." -NYTimes.com

The VAT addresses the deficit problem by creating a huge tax burden on its citizens without addressing the real problem, runaway government spending. I say heck no to VAT!!

[nky]

Depends
Do away with the IRS (both individual and Business) and replace it with a federal sales tax (VAT). I think I could live with that. Everyone would pay their fair share based on what they consume.

If you add a VAT on top of keeping the IRS..... NO WAY

[BoondockSaint]

I like that scenario, but you and I both no that the IRS is going nowhere.

[nky]

under the current VAT "plan" the IRS will not go away.
We could only dream though.
VAT without the IRS would be equitable for all

[BoondockSaint]

I like that scenario, but you and I both no that the IRS is going nowhere.

We both "know"...I just caught that.

[Old School]

My understanding is that the vat tax will be in addition to our current taxes.

[BillyB]

I'm ok with it if it's part of overall tax reform.

[Hoot Gibson]

We do not need tax "reform." Anytime a politician talks about tax reform, what they really mean is a tax increase. A VAT would be imposed on top of the existing taxes and would take pressure of politicians to address the real problem - out of control spending. The 53% of American citizens who actually pay federal income taxes should exercise some common sense, learn from history, and pledge to work to defeat any elected politician who supports such a tax increase.

If the Obama regime imposes a VAT tax on hard working Americans, it will not be long before it shifts all of the tax burden to those of us who are already paying most of the taxes. There will be no wealth to spread soon. What Obama is spreading is misery and despair.

[BillyB]

We do not need tax "reform." Anytime a politician talks about tax reform, what they really mean is a tax increase. A VAT would be imposed on top of the existing taxes and would take pressure of politicians to address the real problem - out of control spending. The 53% of American citizens who actually pay federal income taxes should exercise some common sense, learn from history, and pledge to work to defeat any elected politician who supports such a tax increase.

If the Obama regime imposes a VAT tax on hard working Americans, it will not be long before it shifts all of the tax burden to those of us who are already paying most of the taxes. There will be no wealth to spread soon. What Obama is spreading is misery and despair.

Were it not for all the talking points and rhetoric you'd probably get more people to agree with you on that.

[Hoot Gibson]

Were it not for all the talking points and rhetoric you'd probably get more people to agree with you on that.

If it were not for your ardent support of Barack Obama, people would not be questioning whether you are really a net federal taxpayer.

It is a pretty well established fact that when additional taxes are collected, government spending rises. Knowing this fact, why would a sane federal income tax payer support an additional tax on their earnings?

(A net federal income taxpayer is one who does not receive a larger refund at the end of the year than the amount of taxes he or she paid or had withheld by his or her employer.)

[BoondockSaint]

I'm ok with it if it's part of overall tax reform.

That's because you have no idea what "reform" really means.

[BillyB]

That's because you have no idea what "reform" really means.

Tell me what I think reform means.

[BillyB]

If it were not for your ardent support of Barack Obama, people would not be questioning whether you are really a net federal taxpayer.

:thatsfunn Why would I even care about that?

[OrangenowBlue]

I believe in getting rid of federal income taxes and going with a federal sales tax. I believe it is a called a fair tax. That way everyone pays taxes.

[notamoocher]

I believe in getting rid of federal income taxes and going with a federal sales tax. I believe it is a called a fair tax. That way everyone pays taxes.

Unlike your other posts this I agree with.

[Hoot Gibson]

:thatsfunn Why would I even care about that?

Obama's core supporters are the moochers in our society - the parasites who believe that I and other taxpayers owe them a living wage for doing nothing productive. It is much easier to support a new tax or a higher tax rate if only other people pay it.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

This would be an amazing idea to bad though that a "reform" such as this would as many have stated an increase rather then fair tax. Graduated taxes will never go anywhere it is something that we have welcomed within our liberal capitalism economy. When the graduated income tax was introduced it was one of the greatest reforms in American History at the time. Sounded great because of redistribution on wealth and creating a middle class. NOW the middle class are taxed to death and the redistrbution goes straight up to the upper class. No IRS **** yes that would be the greatest day for all americans, but that will never happen with any political party fact is, all politicans are crooks and we argue simply over who is the lesser of the evils.

[Hoot Gibson]

This would be an amazing idea to bad though that a "reform" such as this would as many have stated an increase rather then fair tax. Graduated taxes will never go anywhere it is something that we have welcomed within our liberal capitalism economy. When the graduated income tax was introduced it was one of the greatest reforms in American History at the time. Sounded great because of redistribution on wealth and creating a middle class. NOW the middle class are taxed to death and the redistrbution goes straight up to the upper class. No IRS **** yes that would be the greatest day for all americans, but that will never happen with any political party fact is, all politicans are crooks and we argue simply over who is the lesser of the evils.

I know that it looks hopeless for the "fair tax" now but with economies like Greece collapsing around us, some country is going to scrap its progressive income tax system and try something entirely different. If that country's economy booms, then it could start a domino effect.

[thecavemaster]

A family of four with an annual income of $65,000 should not pay the same % tax as a family of four with an annual income of $175,000. We live (house, food, clothes); we work (gas, car)... you get the drift... the "basics" cost the family making $65,000 more in actual earned dollars. The widow gives a penny; the oil financier gives a million. It is foolish to suggest that a gallon of milk "costs" the same whether you are rich or poor, unless, of course, one is being simplistic to the point of foolishness. I do not support the "unfair" tax, nor will I ever. Period.

[notamoocher]

A family of four with an annual income of $65,000 should not pay the same % tax as a family of four with an annual income of $175,000. We live (house, food, clothes); we work (gas, car)... you get the drift... the "basics" cost the family making $65,000 more in actual earned dollars. The widow gives a penny; the oil financier gives a million. It is foolish to suggest that a gallon of milk "costs" the same whether you are rich or poor, unless, of course, one is being simplistic to the point of foolishness. I do not support the "unfair" tax, nor will I ever. Period.

You sir don't understand the fair tax. Under the fair tax lower income households would recieve a monthly check to cover the tax they would pay on necessities, such as house, food etc. So your family of four making $65,000.00 would pay less tax than the family that makes $175,000.00. The great thing being, for your point of view at least, would be rich people who buy big things like boats and fancy cars would pay a lot more taxes. People who don't buy much would not pay much. Most of the time on here I do disagree with you, but most of the time you are better informed on the subjects we just have a different opinion on things. Please find out more on the fair tax you may not dislike it as much as you think.:please:

[thecavemaster]

You sir don't understand the fair tax. Under the fair tax lower income households would recieve a monthly check to cover the tax they would pay on necessities, such as house, food etc. So your family of four making $65,000.00 would pay less tax than the family that makes $175,000.00. The great thing being, for your point of view at least, would be rich people who buy big things like boats and fancy cars would pay a lot more taxes. People who don't buy much would not pay much. Most of the time on here I do disagree with you, but most of the time you are better informed on the subjects we just have a different opinion on things. Please find out more on the fair tax you may not dislike it as much as you think.:please:

Where does the monthly check come from? If it comes from the government, why not just keep the tax rate lower for the $65,000 family? Does the family of $65,000 have to track money spent on necessities and then submit a report? If so, to whom? At this point, how big of a program do you have to create to write all the checks, receive all the reports, figure all the amounts and so forth? I will do some research on the fair tax. How does it differ from the flat tax?

[thecavemaster]

I did a little digging: three of the four economists I most trust suggest that the fair tax is actually regressive in the long term, actually favoring those at the highest end of the income spectrum (rate from 53 % down to 45.8%). Unless I read something different, I couldn't be for it. It is, utlimately, it appears to me, regressive. I will read some more, but it appears the reviews are mixed, the idea has been in Congress since 1999, is championed by Neil Boortz, and can't get out of committee.

[notamoocher]

I did a little digging: three of the four economists I most trust suggest that the fair tax is actually regressive in the long term, actually favoring those at the highest end of the income spectrum (rate from 53 % down to 45.8%). Unless I read something different, I couldn't be for it. It is, utlimately, it appears to me, regressive. I will read some more, but it appears the reviews are mixed, the idea has been in Congress since 1999, is championed by Neil Boortz, and can't get out of committee.

It is really simpiler than it sounds. Just to much info for me to put on here. But CM someone paying 45.8 % of thier income in taxes still seems like enough to me. As far as not getting out of committee, maybe congress is worried about giving up their power the present tax codes gives them. Another thing I like is no one could avoid taxes on unreported income which happens a lot now. Under the fair tax if you buy something you pay tax. (except for the base items) Keep checking it out. THANKS

[Hoot Gibson]

A family of four with an annual income of $65,000 should not pay the same % tax as a family of four with an annual income of $175,000. We live (house, food, clothes); we work (gas, car)... you get the drift... the "basics" cost the family making $65,000 more in actual earned dollars. The widow gives a penny; the oil financier gives a million. It is foolish to suggest that a gallon of milk "costs" the same whether you are rich or poor, unless, of course, one is being simplistic to the point of foolishness. I do not support the "unfair" tax, nor will I ever. Period.

It sounds like you know nothing about the Fair Tax and yet are opposed to it. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

[thecavemaster]

It sounds like you know nothing about the Fair Tax and yet are opposed to it. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

I didn't know much about the fair tax until last night. I read for an hour or so, particularly the four economists I tend to trust. And, surprise, surprise, ultimately, it favors the biggest wage earners for reasons those who favor it don't seem to want to embrace or face. No surprises here.

[Hoot Gibson]

I didn't know much about the fair tax until last night. I read for an hour or so, particularly the four economists I tend to trust. And, surprise, surprise, ultimately, it favors the biggest wage earners for reasons those who favor it don't seem to want to embrace or face. No surprises here.

The same low income earners and moochers who pay no federal income taxes now would pay none under the Fair Tax. People who spend large amounts on luxuries would be hit the hardest with the tax. How does it favor the biggest wage earners? If as a middle income earner, I want to live in a tent and put all of my disposable income into stocks, I could escape the tax just like the moocher who refuses to work would. Do you believe that wealthy people would live in tents and forgo all luxuries to avoid being a taxpayer?

Who are those four highly esteemed economists on whose opinions you are substituting for real knowledge on the subject? Are liberal anti-capitalist hacks Krugman and Reich among them? Who are the other two?

I do not believe that the US,will ever adopt the Fair Tax because the IRS, tax preparation industry, tax lawyers, and other deep pocketed lobbies have too much influence on our corrupt elected officials and they have too much to lose if it ever becomes the law of the land.

BTW, many conservatives, such as **** Armey oppose the Fair Tax for various reasons. This is not a strictly liberal v. conservative issue but the liberal opponents generally just want to justify our current Robin Hood tax system.

[thecavemaster]

The same low income earners and moochers who pay no federal income taxes now would pay none under the Fair Tax. People who spend large amounts on luxuries would be hit the hardest with the tax. How does it favor the biggest wage earners? If as a middle income earner, I want to live in a tent and put all of my disposable income into stocks, I could escape the tax just like the moocher who refuses to work would. Do you believe that wealthy people would live in tents and forgo all luxuries to avoid being a taxpayer?

Who are those four highly esteemed economists on whose opinions you are substituting for real knowledge on the subject? Are liberal anti-capitalist hacks Krugman and Reich among them? Who are the other two?

I do not believe that the US,will ever adopt the Fair Tax because the IRS, tax preparation industry, tax lawyers, and other deep pocketed lobbies have too much influence on our corrupt elected officials and they have too much to lose if it ever becomes the law of the land.

BTW, many conservatives, such as **** Armey oppose the Fair Tax for various reasons. This is not a strictly liberal v. conservative issue but the liberal opponents generally just want to justify our current Robin Hood tax system.

DId I suggest the "Fair Tax" was a liberal/conservative issue? I believe in progressive taxation. This glorified sales tax scheme is fair only if you count "fair" in a way I don't. "To those whom much is given, much will be required; to those whom little is given, little will be asked." That's from the Gospels, and it seems "god's" economy of grace, of gifting doesn't match your style. Pity, really. Also, I advocate for the complete overhaul of the current welfare system, not tinkering, complete overhaul. Getting something for nothing hurts the individual, the community, and society as a whole.

[thecavemaster]

By the way, Bruce Bartlett, former Treasury Department Secretary, has written an article entitled "Why the Fair Tax Won't Work" for any impartial reader who would care to read it.

[notamoocher]

DId I suggest the "Fair Tax" was a liberal/conservative issue? I believe in progressive taxation. This glorified sales tax scheme is fair only if you count "fair" in a way I don't. "To those whom much is given, much will be required; to those whom little is given, little will be asked." That's from the Gospels, and it seems "god's" economy of grace, of gifting doesn't match your style. Pity, really. Also, I advocate for the complete overhaul of the current welfare system, not tinkering, complete overhaul. Getting something for nothing hurts the individual, the community, and society as a whole.

So if I get you right if someone makes alot of money it is given to them. So working 60 hrs a week compared to 40 hrs means I have been given something. I don't endose the gospel economy(at least not at this time in history). Your belief in what you call progressive taxation comes from Karl Marx. I believe Marx's system was used by Russia. It didn't seem to work. If getting something for nothing hurts everything then getting something because you work hard and smart should help everything?

[thecavemaster]

So if I get you right if someone makes alot of money it is given to them. So working 60 hrs a week compared to 40 hrs means I have been given something. I don't endose the gospel economy(at least not at this time in history). Your belief in what you call progressive taxation comes from Karl Marx. I believe Marx's system was used by Russia. It didn't seem to work. If getting something for nothing hurts everything then getting something because you work hard and smart should help everything?

He who says, "I am a self-made man relieves the Almighty of a tremendous responsibility." Is that what you're saying? Karl Marx? ...and there you go again. What "jesus" is suggesting, in reality, has more to do with the "Source" of all blessing, really, and some sort of ultimate "accounting" process. Progressive taxation is not communism or The Communist Manifesto. Your grasping, there, my friend. The government's taxation system of private individuals and enterprise is not government ownership, state-owned and operated industry and the like.