VAT

[James48843]

just an FYI- in a budget extension last week, the Senate and the House both passed an extension bill, that contained the following language. It pretty much kills any talk of a VAT in the future. Here is the exact wording which was passed in both houses, and was sent to the President- which he signed:

SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A VALUE ADDED TAX.

• It is the sense of the Senate that the Value Added Tax is a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery and the Senate opposes a Value Added Tax.

No doubt- you can consider it quashed.

It became Public Law 111-157 last week.

 

[tsptalk]

Excellent!

 

[nnuut]

Double EXCELLENT!!! :laugh:

 

[grandma]

Whew!
Whee!

 

[Scout333]

SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A VALUE ADDED TAX.


It is the sense of the Senate that the Value Added Tax is a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery and the Senate opposes a Value Added Tax.

The VAT is an evil little bugger. Mainly because of the way it functions. It generally applies at every level of production and sales which increases the tax cost of virtually everything you buy. Before you realize it more than 50% of the cost of an item is Tax. A hidden tax at that. No one should be in favor of this method. Too easy to raise enormous amounts of revenue with a small increase in the rate. i.e. a 1-2% rate increase could generate $ 100s of billions of revenue. It is also regressive with a disproportionate effect on lower to middle income folks. :notrust: i.e. those of us who spend a big part of our disposable income on necessities.

Looks like we may have dodged a bullet on this one!

 

[Frixxxx]

Looks like we may have dodged a bullet on this one!

"WE"?, this just means another reason for a distribution of wealth tax. Tax the rich to pay for the poor.

1) Define what we are paying for in concrete numbers.

2) Budget accordingly.

3) Require EVERY politician to define revenues BEFORE enacting a law. (including ammendments)

4) Pay for the law until it can't be paid for. Stop..Stop...Stop

I do not see an issue with this style of government, except no one is doing it?

 

[Scout333]

Frixxx, Major problem with this method is that it makes it even easier for the POLs to access our accounts and raise funds for new programs, etc. The fact that it is also regressive gives us some protection from this method. i.e. no politician will want to explain to their non-taxpaying constituents that this will cost them money. Also, this would be an add-on tax in addition to income and estate taxes. There has been no conversation about using the VAT as a replacement tax. IMHO this is a horrible idea.:notrust:

Too easy to raise enormous amounts of revenue with a small increase in the rate. i.e. a 1-2% rate increase could generate $ 100s of billions of revenue. It is also regressive with a disproportionate effect on lower to middle income folks. i.e. those of us who spend a big part of our disposable income on necessities.

 

[Frixxxx]

Frixxx, Major problem with this method is that it makes it even easier for the POLs to access our accounts and raise funds for new programs, etc. The fact that it is also regressive gives us some protection from this method. i.e. no politician will want to explain to their non-taxpaying constituents that this will cost them money. Also, this would be an add-on tax in addition to income and estate taxes. There has been no conversation about using the VAT as a replacement tax. IMHO this is a horrible idea.:notrust:

Too easy to raise enormous amounts of revenue with a small increase in the rate. i.e. a 1-2% rate increase could generate $ 100s of billions of revenue. It is also regressive with a disproportionate effect on lower to middle income folks. i.e. those of us who spend a big part of our disposable income on necessities.

Scout, I agree, I was saying that only TAXPAYERS dodged the bullet. Barely half of the citizens of the country pay taxes....We need something a little more "fair", like a fair tax!

 

[Scout333]

Sounds like we are on the same wavelength!

"Don't mind a progressive system. i.e. The more you make the higher % you pay but everyone should pay something. It is especially abhorrent to get refunds when you've paid nothing into the pot. "

 

[James48843]

Scout, I agree, I was saying that only TAXPAYERS dodged the bullet. Barely half of the citizens of the country pay taxes....We need something a little more "fair", like a fair tax!

It is not true that barely half of the citizens of the country pay taxes. The vast majority of citizens pay taxes- through payroll taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc. What you are referring to is the Federal Income tax, which is just one of many taxes people pay.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/who-pays-taxes

p.s--i could go for a flat-rate "fair tax".

But it will never happen. Way too many lawyers and accountants make too much money off the current 75,000 page tax code to allow it to be simplified.

 

[Frixxxx]

What you are referring to is the Federal Income tax, which is just one of many taxes people pay.

p.s--i could go for a flat-rate "fair tax".

But it will never happen. Way too many lawyers and accountants make too much money off the current 75,000 page tax code to allow it to be simplified.

You are right, everyone benefits from the federal government and the "protection" they provide. When people are exempt, that is wrong.

Thanks for the fair tax vote!

 

[James48843]

Except I end up paying more under "Fair Tax".

View attachment 9239

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=calculator​

 

[Frixxxx]

Wow,

I get another 20K

 

[Minnow]

Hey, I make out OK with the FairTax:

With the Fair Tax, you get:
4.46% MORE
spendable income.
$1,778.76 MORE
purchasing power.
$2,242.02 LESS
federal taxes.

 

[alevin]

I''ve been a fan of Fair Tax for years now. Didn't know about the calculator til today. I checked it out for me but am confused by one thing. How can you have purchasing power $ less than disposable income $? I''m a little slow today

 

[James48843]

Hey, I make out OK with the FairTax:

With the Fair Tax, you get:
4.46% MORE spendable income.


$1,778.76 MORE purchasing power.


$2,242.02 LESS federal taxes.

Alevin- does that make better sense to you?

(it's all in the spacing...:laugh

 

[James48843]

Wow,

I get another 20K

It looks to me like the thing that would swing it widely for me is if I spent a whole lot more on "used" things. That way I would gain, rather than lose, under "Fair Tax".

That means one of the things you really need to take into account is what affect on the economy changing the tax system that radically would do. For example- the "Fair Tax" would change my buying habits from new cars, to used cars, to avoid the 23% tax. That would boost used car values, but would devastate new car purchases, I think. We would become a nation of purchasers of used items rather than new items.

It would do wonders, of course, for our balance of trade, if nobody was buying new items anymore. No one would be importing anything.

Food for thought.

 

[alevin]

That is one of the things that attracted me to the idea. Recycle, reuse. That was before I understood the deflation implications inherent. Would result in pawn shops, flea markets, garage sales, used book stores, used car salesmen, junk yards doing great business, ever other retailer? Not so good. Production jobs? not so good. Less gov taxes=major downsizing of fed budget-needed, true, would our jobs still be there or would we necessarily become pawnbrokers competing with everyone else for goods to resell? Prices of used items would go up and up, until balanced out with cost of new?

 

[James48843]

Note to self-- if it looks like the Fair Tax has a snowball's chance of passing, invest in used, good condition cars. Cause they won't be making them anymore. In ten years, you'll be wealthy.

Kind of like the old cars of Cuba, ya know.

View attachment 9243​

 

[Show-me]

And, there in lies the problem. We do not want to do what is fair, but what benefits us the most. I always knew the FairTax would cost me more, but I would control what I spend, thus how much tax I pay.