Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We've had VATs on various items for decades. They haven't shut down any industries. You can relax and take a deep breath now.
How exactly did you think the record Bush deficits would be paid off? How exactly did you expect the feds to repair the economy?
I don't like paying taxes any more than you do. But I understand why this is necessary while you apparently think that it's just a pet project of Obama's. Please...
Thank you for being the first to prove my point...blame Bush. Why no mention of the spiraling deficit under Obama?
And again, according to Obama, the measures are in place now to reduce the deficit..healthcare, expiring tax cuts, Paygo. Why add more tax burden, one that will inevitably affect all, including the middle class? How does that repair the economy?
This is the way Obama operates..he gets some butt kisser of his or the media to put things out there to see what the public reaction is...then moves accordingly
This is the way Obama operates..he gets some butt kisser of his or the media to put things out there to see what the public reaction is...then moves accordingly
Isn't that why he signed an Executive Order to establish a Debt Commission? They're charged with coming up with specific recommendations to reduce the debt by 2015. So they recommend it, and the onus is off him.
First, it's interesting that when McCain recommended the creation of such a commission during the campaign, Obama ridiculed him, calling it a 'stunt', and a 'way to pass the buck'. Guess it's OK when he does it.
Second, any elected Congressman or Senator serving on that commission is going to be loathe to recommend such a highly unpopular idea. That will be a very tough sell.
Acknowledging it would be a highly unpopular move, White House economic adviser Paul Volcker said yesterday the United States should consider imposing a "value added tax" similar to those charged in Europe to help get the deficit under control.
A VAT is a national sales tax that, like state and city sales taxes, would be collected by retailers.
Volcker, at the New-York Historical Society, told a panel on the global financial crisis that Congress might also have to consider new taxes on carbon and energy.
The VAT suggestion was immediately met with outrage by Republicans.
"It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Obama White House would advocate a European-style tax to help finance their European-style government health-care plan," said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. FOXNews.com - Obama Economic Adviser Says U.S. Should Consider 'Value Added Tax'
I told you so....Obama loves Europe...please Obama move there and leave the good old USA as it is!
More businesses will go out of business!!!
The netherlands has VAT 19% on clothes, cars, gas, etc...
On groceries, 6%, also 6% on shoe repair, hair cuts, books, etc...
Krauthammer said this about a week or so ago. He said there was no other way to pay for the mess like socialized medicine.
You do realize, don't you, that the proposal aims to replace the income tax with VAT?
Everyone seems to hate the IRS and April 15th, so here's a way to actually get rid of it all and suddenly it's a terrible idea?
you can't be serious, we all know that isn't going to happen. Of course, many of us would love to see some form of flat tax or an overall sales tax to replace income tax, but if you think for one second the VAT will replace the present system dream on. Many would like to make us think that.
to SPOT, I hope you realize how much we spend on education already and it isn't getting us far is it, plus taxes for education should not be a federal issue but a local one. Spending more isn't going to guarantee improvement, letting teachers teach might.
Thank you for being the first to prove my point...blame Bush. Why no mention of the spiraling deficit under Obama?
And your point was that Bush didn't sink the economy?
Quote:
And again, according to Obama, the measures are in place now to reduce the deficit..healthcare, expiring tax cuts, Paygo. Why add more tax burden, one that will inevitably affect all, including the middle class?
I don't like taxes, either. But I do understand why this is necessary. And I understand that it's a big sh*t sandwich and we all have to take a bite. It doesn't taste any better to me than it does to you.
Quote:
How does that repair the economy?
By paying back the Chinese for the Bush deficit.
You are aware that the Bush deficits and the deregulation of the financial industry was directly responsible for the tomfoolery that sank the economy, right?
You don't really think we could run up that tremendous debt and not repay it w/o disastrous consequences for our currency, right?
And let's take a quick look at the Bush spending, while we're at it. What did he buy, exactly? Where did all that money go? New highway projects? Bridge repairs? Airport improvements? Repairing the power grid?
No, none of that. No public works. It went into the daily operation of the federal government, is all. Those loans paid for keeping the feds in business because Bush created a huge void in federal revenue by giving those big tax breaks to the wealthiest few percent.
It was spending w/o "buying" anything. Like paying rent with a credit card and not worrying about it until the bill arrives.
The bill arrived in Sept 2008. Along with some "gambling debts" from Wall St, also courtesy of poor administration policy that led to overly risky and irresponsible "financial management" like derivatives, credit default swaps, etc.
Whatever measures Obama puts in place to reduce the deficit will have to be supplemented by more revenue. Otherwise the debt grows even worse and our economy doesn't step back from the abyss. Halting the growth of the deficit isn't enough. It has to be reduced. Inflation will take care of some of that. But increased revenue is required for some, also.
Well, yes and no. Here's the study which Volker was referring to, released last month. It contains several options, none of which have been agreed to. It's just a list of options for consideration.
While it does not suggest totally eliminating the income tax (I WAS wrong about that), some of the options considered would allow substantial reductions in the payroll taxes paid by both employers and employees. In fact, it would make a pretty substantial positive difference for Joe Worker. Also included are some options for changes in the way businesses are taxed which would have the effect of ending the tax policies which make off-shoring of our jobs attractive.
Overall though, the tax burden on most people would rise, except for the lower income groups. As an offset, the wealthy would be unable to shelter their income from the VAT and they would end up paying more.
Here's the study if you want to read it yourself and cut out the middle-man commentators, all of whom have an agenda to defend:
You do understand the difference in the spending, though...
Well, I understand that it's SPUN a certain way, but they're both deficits and there's no excuse for them. Glad we agree on that much at least.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just checking...
