Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I would favor a national sales tax to replace the income tax. I would favor it under two conditions:

1) That it not apply to groceries.
2) That it not apply to services, only to products.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Value Added Tax works real well in socialist countries. *F*R*A*N*C*E* loves it. So do England and Canada, and those Socialist Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. So does Germany. 'Nuff said...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
The bottom 50% of 'taxpayers', by income, pay little or no income tax right now (2.89% of total individual income tax in 2007) http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html . A straight 25% VAT would cut their ability to purchase goods and services by a quarter. That ain't gonna fly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I'm not sure we're reading that the same way: the bottom 50% as a group pay little or no income tax with respect to the total income tax paid by all citizens, but in terms of what they pay of their own income it's still a healthy percent (not 2.89% as I think you are suggesting).

---

Quote:

---

I sense skepticism and I totally agree - if the system is planned well enough initially then it takes care of itself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Value Added Tax works real well in socialist countries. *F*R*A*N*C*E* loves it. So do England and Canada, and those Socialist Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. So does Germany. 'Nuff said...

---

So it's been tested by a lot of intelligent people and they love it - what are we waiting for?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is a horrendous idea.

1) It would reduce commerce in america
2) govt. never gives up a tax, so this would be proposed as an income tax replacement, and would pass under that supposition, but income tax repeal would then fail as the next bill.
3) It would be a tax on the poor and middle class. The % of income spend on taxable goods for the lower income groups is far higher than that of the upper income, who spend their money mostly on investments, or stash their earnings away, here, overseas, or in some tax shelter.

We're headed for an 85% tax system cumulatively. Don't push for 90%

Unless it would prompt a revolution, in which case, go ahead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Value Added Tax works real well in socialist countries. *F*R*A*N*C*E* loves it. So do England and Canada, and those Socialist Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland. So does Germany. 'Nuff said...

---

So it's been tested by a lot of intelligent people and they love it - what are we waiting for?

---

You're not listening!

FRANCE ! ! ! ,

remember them? The cheese eating, frog sucking, surrender monkeys? The SOCIALISTS , the arrogant, wine-swilling, cigarette puffing guys who invented freedom fries and freedom toast, but who wouldn't join the coalation of the willing?
And the Brits, with their Queen and defective national Health System, and the Canadians whose health care is so bad, they have to come to America to get flu shots?
If they think this tax is a good idea, doesn't that automatically make it a bad idea?

And never mind the Germans ...

;,)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I'm not sure we're reading that the same way: the bottom 50% as a group pay little or no income tax with respect to the total income tax paid by all citizens, but in terms of what they pay of their own income it's still a healthy percent (not 2.89% as I think you are suggesting).

---

Well, per the same table in the Tax Foundation report, the average tax rate for the bottom 50% is 2.99%. So, on average, they're paying three cents on the dollar income tax. Quite a bit less than 25 cents on the dollar VAT. I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the bottom 40% don't pay income tax at all, and instead often get Earned Income Tax credit - in effect, a negative income tax.

Quote:

---

I sense skepticism and I totally agree - if the system is planned well enough initially then it takes care of itself.

---

The current tax system has been entirely designed and planned by the Congress, complete with loopholes, credits, deductions, etc. for their constituants and buddies. Pretty much everything folks blame the IRS for is due to a law the Congress passed, or a mandate some committee chairman imposed. I don't expect that the planning of a VAT system by Congress would be any better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Pizmo: sounds like a good way to get a hell of a lot of inflation to me, and to end up with a lot more poor and hungry people.

Now let me read the rest of the comments and see that everyone has said the exact same thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Will the materials required to produce goods ALSO be taxed?

Higher production costs = high product costs = inflation. Simple.

The only time a company will LOWER their price is if there's competition and they're trying to undercut them. A company isn't going to lower prices so that a target demographic can afford it better, that cuts into the all-important profit. They'll just market to a different demographic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Whatever tax tables SAY, whatever almost anyone SAYS, the fact is that the rich have so many loopholes and off-shore crap that they almost NEVER pay anything close to their actual taxes. So there can be no comparison, no matter how many "big ticket items" they may buy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"No, taxes are only collected on consumer goods bought by individuals, not materials purchased by companies."

Hello,

I'm not sure I like making companies tax-exempt.

Everybody pays or nobody pays.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If we are not going to treat corporations just like individuals, then we need to do away with all laws involving corporate personhood.

And then I'll be on board.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer: Sure, they're "legal", bought and paid for--like writing to our reps would make any difference!--but that doesn't make them right...

---

Quote:

---

...and it does mean that any across-the-board tax weighs far heavier on poor and middle class than it does on corporations or the rich, which ws my point.

---

Quote:

---

But to give you a comprehensive cite...It's pretty comprehensive, and the whole book is online. Check it out: http://www.ctj.org/hid_ent/contents/content.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But even I realize that we could lose half of them and still defend ourselves against any power on the planet. What are we arming against? Extra-Terrestrials?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is a horrendous idea.

1) It would reduce commerce in america
2) govt. never gives up a tax, so this would be proposed as an income tax replacement, and would pass under that supposition, but income tax repeal would then fail as the next bill.
3) It would be a tax on the poor and middle class. The % of income spend on taxable goods for the lower income groups is far higher than that of the upper income, who spend their money mostly on investments, or stash their earnings away, here, overseas, or in some tax shelter.

We're headed for an 85% tax system cumulatively. Don't push for 90%

Unless it would prompt a revolution, in which case, go ahead.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Maybe at this point it's not about fairness, but rather about swiftness? (I'd prefer fair, but can any tax be fair?)

I have no idea from where the previous and current admins. are pulling this recent DEBT from (I assume future debt), or what the limits of those resources are, but we're looking at:

$1,200,000,000 deficit + more billions in stimulus coming and a $700,000,000 Health Care plan in the works.

Health Care is broken, it has to be fixed. We need a tax.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Geezer:


I understand that you think the rich are evil because they're rich, and that they should be punished (Don't deny it, you know that's how you feel).

---

Quote:

---

I know it's broke man...

Too many poor lazy people getting money for nothing and their checks for free.

Think about it though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:


$1,200,000,000 deficit + more billions in stimulus coming and a $700,000,000 Health Care plan in the works.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, don't tell me what I think; it's offensive and I resent it. I don't hate the rich, by any means, nor want to punish them.

---

Quote:

---

And if you believe people making less than (what is it, $6,000 a year?) don't pay taxes and should, or that this situation is at all fair, try living on that, or even $12,000 a year, then tell me it should be taxed.

---

Quote:

---

You truly believe all the tax breaks enacted by people like Dumbya are "right"?

---

Quote:

---

I never spoke of "across-the-board" INCOME tax;

---

Quote:

---

I was responding to the suggestion of a VAT, which would impact the rich less than anyone else, given they can afford to pay it better than people who are scraping by. The argument was that, because they ARE more able to pay a VAT, it puts further burden on the other "classes", which you admitted yourself.

---

Quote:

---

You truly believe that those (mortgage interest deduction, etc.) benefit the middle class more than the rich?

---

Quote:

---

I note you didn't point to the tax breaks to which I was referring, just dismissed the information based on those.

---

Quote:

---

Nonetheless, I'm not sure what's considered "middle class" these days, but many in what I see as the middle class nowadays are renters and never can afford a house or mortgage;

---

Quote:

---

you have to give a helluvalot of charity to gain anything from charitable deductions--how many of the middle class, much less poor, can afford to, and how many rich create things which save them taxes JUST because they save them taxes?

---

Quote:

---

The same holds true for medical deductions, casualty losses, etc. It just doesn't wash...in my OPINION

---

Quote:

---

If you truly believe the tax system is set up to be equal for all classes, then we are at opposite sides of the spectrum and will have to agree to disagree.

---

Quote:

---

I wouldn't mind if you found it possible to omit the personal nastiness in debating me. It's unnecessary and rude, but I can only ask and be responsible for my own posts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do realize that 66 cents out of every welfare dollar goes to corporations and farmers, yes? I think there are probably about 66% fewer "lazy people" than you think there are.

---

Quote:

---

Harder on the middle class and poor." I've seen that and it doesn't completely compute for me. I assume that the wealthy buy more high ticket items, buy larger homes, fancier cars, and use legal services more, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
I don't like the way the SYSTEM is set up because in my opinion it benefits the rich.

---

Quote:

---

It is my belief that the rebates provided by any VAT tax do not change the fact that proportionally, the poor suffer more from them.

---

Quote:

---

I also don't believe deductions are as profitable for the middle class, and certainly not the poor, as they are for the rich.

---

Quote:

---

As to the $6,000 remark, my point remains the same, whatever the tax system is, trying to live on $6,000, even with a bit of help, is inhuman and doesn't even come into the equation, for me.

---

Quote:

---

...but those who DO give enormous sums merely to get tax breaks. They are myriad, and I stand by my point.

---

Quote:

---

I grant that perhaps "in general", people who make more money pay more income taxes, but I was talking proportionally for the most part, and I think a good number of them--and certainly those on Wall Street and CEOs of big corporations who make many times the salaries of the middle class and poor, find more ways to pay less proportionally through loopholes and exemptions, especially after Dumbya.

---

Quote:

---

Many rich people get away with far more than "their share" of income taxes via loopholes and exemptions; I stand by that and I think MOST people would agree.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Quote:

---

Harder on the middle class and poor." I've seen that and it doesn't completely compute for me. I assume that the wealthy buy more high ticket items, buy larger homes, fancier cars, and use legal services more, etc.

---

Then things are not as they seem

The wealthy invest, they don't purchase. "Big ticket items" are overwhelmingly bought by the middle class, and bought on credit. New cars, new homes. 1/2 million dollar homes, are bought by working class families in black neighborhoods in cities.

That's where the difference comes in: Economies of scale. These city people aren't "rich" but their houses cost 3000 times what mine does, because they live in this credit economy. Most americans do.

But the "rich" those are people with large bank accounts and trust funds... they don't buy jack. They don't need to. They inherited their property, too.

And good for them. No issue there, but this is still a horrendous idea. The overwhelming portion of money spent on taxable goods are by the poor and middle class, because you can only buy so much, and past that, even if there were more to buy, you would have to be a moron to buy them, and it's hard to be a moron and stay rich, because there are so many people who want to take your money.

If you earn 10,000, you spend 10,000
If you earn 100,000, most of it goes to taxes, you probably spend 30,000, and end up with no savings
If you earn a million, you spend around 50,000.

Yeah, I know a fair number of rich people, I don't need to guess.

If you earn 10,000,000, you spend about 100,000
If you earn 100,000,000, you spend about 10,000

Because you still have to eat. People in this bracket already "own" they don't need to "buy."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Maybe we need to define "rich," because the notion that that always means trust funds and inheritance is richist.

---