>>If you think we have a VAT now (profits tax plus payroll tax) then by that bizarre definition of VAT I can’t disagree.<<
You’re the one trying to re-define the VAT, not me. I was just pointing out that your definition is pretty close to what a VAT actually taxes when it taxes “value added.” This is because most of the value added is in the form of labor cost and profit margin.
And no, I don’t think we have a VAT now. Companies are taxed on profits at 35% and employees are taxed on wages in up to four different ways, income tax, ss/med taxes, dividends, and capital gains. Hardly a VAT, as no value-added calculation is ever performed, and the rates on the various forms of income are all wildly different besides.
The issue boils down to whether or not Cain’s business tax is a VAT, as many are now claiming, and as he has so far denied. It certainly appears to have all the characteristics of a VAT, i.e., a flat tax based on the value added by any particular company, paid directly to the treasure by the company. I’m not sure why you want to confuse the issue so much?
Perhaps you could tell me how you define a VAT and then explain how Cain’s business tax differs (other than in minor ways such as excluding dividends.)
Perhaps you could tell me how you define a VAT and then explain how Cain’s business tax differs.
Please.