Why does FoxNews continue to report on a value added tax being in the works? (suspect, politicians)

[Icy Tea]

Fox just wants to keep the people informed so they can take the necessary measures to either prepare for it or try to help prevent it. Anybody else can watch MSNBC and stay asleep or deceived or whatever it is they do.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by aliveandwellinSA

What tax increases would you be in favor of to pay the bills? Apparently you oppose the Fair and VAT from your comment.

I wouldn't favor any general tax increase at the moment. I'd like to see the recovery more firmy established first, and I'd like to have the chance to see some data that don't have to be dismissed as transitional before making major decisions. That said, the hole that Bush was digging all along is going to have to be filled back in, and then there's this big bonus hole at the end that he left us also, and that needs to be taken care of as well. There is no question that I see that the overall national fiscal position that was taken from admirable to deplorable starting in 2001 needs to be re-shored up substantially. But just as the situation of 2000 was not put together in a day, getting back to where we need to be will be a long-term project.

The "Fair Tax" as proposed isn't even a serious option. It's a political joke that would fall apart under the rigors of actual application. I don't have anything against a VAT per se. Plenty of countries use it. The bugs are known and can sort of be accounted for. But I would probably prefer to see at least the bulk of any "revenue enhancements" come through a progressive tax structure, if simply because the majority of revenues don't. I'd also like to see something that can be dialed up or down with relative ease, and one thing that meets those criteria is an income surtax. You figure out your income taxes as always, then you take 2% (or whatever) of what you owe and add that to the bill. Surtaxes were used during the Vietnam War era, and while no more popular than the war itself, they did work well. Several at least quasi-surtax plans have been batted about over the last year or so (for instance, a surtax of 4.5% on incomes above $500K would permanently fund the annual AMT patch, leaving the tax burden where it originally belonged), but quite unlike FOX News, I don't think it's accurate to say that anything more than research and information gathering is going on within the administration at the present time.

[NewToCA]

That income surtax concept is something I've supported for a long time, also makes folks think a bit because you have to put money where your mouth is.

Though I'm strongly in favor of international military relations, I opposed the Iraq war prior to it being engaged. Aside from the fact I thought the justification was poorly established, it seemed that those in favor of the war significantly underestimated the cost.

One way I believed folks would give more thought to the cost would have been the establishment of a "Iraq war surtax", to make folks make some legitimate sacrifice in support of the effort. I favored something on the order of a minimum of $100 per adult (18 and over) tax filer, or a 3% tax bill surcharge, whichever was greater per taxpayer. This would have been evaluated annually, to determine if folks still wanted to pay for (and engage in) this military action.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by aliveandwellinSA

What tax increases would you be in favor of to pay the bills?

Apparently you oppose the Fair and VAT from your comment.

saganista is correct about the VAT and the alleged fair tax.

In reference to the alleged fair tax, let us keep in mind it is a progressive tax proposal!
In fact, the alleged fair tax is designed to put every American family on the public dole with its “family consumption allowance”, and would make the majority of voters in America dependent upon a monthly federal check which is the progressives wet dream! The monthly check would allow the purchase of a rationed supply of tax free necessities of life, which is nothing more than a monthly subsistence check.

Were we not warned that A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL ?____ Hamilton, No. 79 Federalist Papers

I cannot speak for saganista but I support and defend out Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which could be returned to by adding the following 32 words to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

JWK

“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

[georgia dem]

Originally Posted by EllenArlingtonPark

Fox and news should not be allowed in the same sentence, they are a sensationalist opinion network, nothing more. Enough said.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
so that is what you think, so we should all bow down?
good grief~

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by georgia dem

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
so that is what you think, so we should all bow down?
good grief~

A well measured response! However, I am still puzzled why Fox would report on the VAT without mentioning it would violate the documented intentions under which our Constitution's rule of apportionment was adopted


JWK

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by MainelyJersey

Perhaps because they see the writing on the wall. Obama establishes a 'debt commission'. Has not ruled out a VAT. CBO says current debt projections are 'unsustainable'.

Put it together...commission will recommend VAT. Obama will blame Bush. VAT will be enacted.

About the only thing more predictable than those actions will be the left's acceptance of new taxes to pay for an entitlement program that was sold as 'reducing the deficit'.

That about sums it up nicely MainelyJersey.

[johnwk1]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

That about sums it up nicely MainelyJersey.

That does not sum up why Fox has failed to report a VAT would violate our Constitution if imposed. Is there no duty to protect and defend our constitutionally limited system of government?

JWK

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by johnwk1

Seems to me FoxNews is once again doing the heavy lifting for big government and trying to prepare the public for a new tax to fund the tyrannical big spending Washington Establishment. Almost every show on FoxNews is telling us a VAT is coming, but not one show on FoxNews reports such a tax would violate both the letter and intentions for which the rule of apportionment was put into our Constitution.

In fact, a VAT, as well as the alleged fairtax and our present tax calculated from “income”, all violate that part of our Constitution under which our founding fathers intended that if Congress did not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes, and decided to impose a general tax among the States to raise additional revenue, that general tax would have to be apportioned so that the people of each State would be obligated to pay a portion of a total sum needed which would be based upon its representation in Congress.

The founding father’s fair share formula for any general tax among the States is as follows:


State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S FAIR SHARE OF TAX
Total U.S. Population


The agreed upon rule among the States for any “general tax” was that taxation and representation would be fixed by each State’s population size! But under the FoxNews touted VAT, the people of those States paying the largest share of the tax into the federal treasury would not receive their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their financial contribution! Why does FoxNews not report this fatal defect in a VAT?

Abiding by our Constitution’s rule of apportionment would stop the progressive’s agenda of “social justice” in its tracks under which these progressives now vote in mass, but 40 percent are free from contributing in mass via taxes calculated from “incomes“!

Why is it that not one personality on FoxNews takes the time to educate their viewing audience to the founding father’s intentions under which the rule of apportionment was agreed to and would be violated if a value added tax were laid among the States?

JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot’s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

They're in the business of sensationalism, not news.
They make up stuff like that to stir their right-wing base.

They've even reported the financial reform bill means the government will be running the banks.

[Boompa]

It's probably just that Rupert likes it. What he'll do is have his Wall Sreet Journal report on it and then have his Fox """News""" report on the Wall Street Journal Article