Posted on 10/02/2009 4:35:54 AM PDT by RayChuang88
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Obama has been steadfast in his pledge that he won't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000.
But that doesn't mean only high-income households will be subject to higher taxes.
An increasing number of influential Democrats and fiscal policy experts have signaled publicly that lawmakers will have to get a handle on the deficit sooner rather than later. And they recommend policymakers seriously consider the creation of adding a value-added tax (VAT) on top of the federal income tax.
That could mean more money out of everyone's pockets when buying virtually anything - sweaters, school books, furniture, pottery classes, dinners out.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
HAHAAHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
snort
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
snort
Hope and Change baby!
Why in Gods name will I go to work only to pay 50+% of my income in taxes and THEN get taxed on any “allowance” the feds decide to leave me? Going to be EARLY retirement for this Doc. I’ll be at the beach.
"You've got talk about some tax that hits consumption," said Volcker. "Value-added is one."Yes, VAT is a consumption tax.
From your key board to Gods ears! It may be the only way out of this "Oboma will save us" disaster.
Unless you count the huge tax increase of $32.8 billion on tobacco products (62 cents on a pack of cigarettes) that he signed into law in February, only two weeks after he was coronated.
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 per year, will see any form of tax increase.
Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
-– Candidate Barack Obama, Sept. 12, 2008, Dover, N.H.
and ending the income tax means millions of manufacturing and service sector jobs return to the USA under better tax circumstances.
Hogwash...
It does absolutely nothing to alleviate the EPA, OSHA regulations, Zoning regulations, Worker's comp litigation, etc. etc. that burden domestic manufacturing sector.
You might as well be claiming that the Fair Tax will also remove calcium deposits and eliminate mildew stains. The Fair Tax snakeoil claims are that ludicrous.
Why would Congress restrict itself to only spending what its revenues are? Why not deficit spend, like it's doing now?
Changing the taxation model will NOT change the way Congress spends, only the way they collect dollars from us. The only way to reform Congress' spending stupor is to vote them all out OR add a Constitutional balanced budget amendment.
He is being grown-up, and he's being a realist. If Congress refuses to curb it's deficit-spending ways, then there is no choice but to increase taxation and try to get more revenues. Current deficit spending levels are unsustainable, so it's either cut back on spending or increase taxation.
Volker said "if we can't do it on the cost side" - if we cannot curb spending - "we've got to go on the revenue side" - increase taxation.
It's quite grown-up, it faces and addresses the problem straight on. If Congress does not curb deficit spending there is no other option but to increase taxation. And since our economy is essentially a consumption-based economy, you have to look at taxation of consumption. Sales tax or VAT, you pick.
I mean think about it: do you want tomorrow's wind turbines, tidal wave generators, solar panels and advanced electric batteries to be built in the USA, or built in Mexico, eastern Asia, etc? Build it here and it means millions of new jobs for the American economy.
Dems don’t raise taxes on poor and middle class people, they just raise the cost of everything they use one way orthe other.
re: first problem to address is spending itself
That can’t be said loud enough or too many times. Every plan they come up with to move toward a more balanced budget involves only one side of the equation and that’s the income side.
Millions and millions of families all across the country determine outgo on the basis of income. Government is the only entity I know of that does it the other way around. We want this, we want that, the ‘people’ need this, the ‘children’ need that. OK what’s it going to cost? Great, let the little people know what they will be paying to us this year.
If it were me I would take the projected income, uh oh we’re in trouble already, and divide it among all the agencies, etc. on a percentage basis. Period. If it’s 10% less than last year everyone gets 90% of what they got last budget year. Here’s your allowance, spend it wisely. Save some of it and you can add it into next year’s allowance. Spend it all by Sept. and you can close down for a month.
It works for us, it will to be made to work for them.
B@stards.
How about you @$$h0les cut runaway government spending, rather than sending the rest of us into permanent penury and serfdom? Oh, wait a minute. That's your objective. Never mind.
"Public Servants", my @$$!
Is it time yet, Claire...?
He said he CAN make a pledge. And he can. But he did not say he was making it.
I mean think about it: do you want tomorrow's wind turbines, tidal wave generators, solar panels and advanced electric batteries to be built in the USA, or built in Mexico, eastern Asia, etc?
Most of that technology is overhyped as well, so I really don't care where it's made.
If you really want to address our future needs, we should be building electrically powered mass transportation systems (high-speed rail, light-rail and Maglev), nuclear power plants and desalination plants to supply fresh water to our coastal cities.
But hey, it's not my fault that you financial frauds and hucksters are just as technologically incompetent as the bean sprout and tofu crowd.
As far as I'm concerned, the Fair Tax is to economic discussion what
9/11 conspiracy theories are to the War on Terror.
I'm tired of hearing the drivel.
I agree. Check the spending. 23% is ludicrous! $230 in taxes on a $1000 purchase. Why does the government need that much? $4600 on a $20,000 car? NO WAY!
I recommending reading this overview paper in PDF format to explain how FairTax works:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxFAQ.pdf
Actually, that's $230 on a $770 dollar purchase, ($1000 total purchase + tax.)
That's actually a 29.87% sales tax rate, but the hucksters utilize the more obscure "inclusive" method of calculation so they can deceive the public with the lower figure.
It’s still a tax, and too high. Show that you can control spending before offering me a new tax.
You are right - sigh. I just would have liked for Volcker to push the cuts in spending angle more forcefully.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.