RE: Valued Added Tax Solution

RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

Valued Added Tax Solution

YES - I would support replacing the Tax Code with a 20% VAT

42% (14)

NO - I do not support replacing the Tax Code with a 20% VAT.

57% (19)

Total Votes : 33

(last vote on : 4/10/2010 5:59:28 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

cpK69 -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 11:07:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth even without accounting for the 'underemployed'. Who is this? Kim

Mercnbeth -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 11:21:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth even without accounting for the 'underemployed'. Who is this? Kim As defined by NPR, used for its reputation as neutral information source: Millions of Americans have found themselves out of work since the recession began, but even those who can find employment often must settle for jobs they're overqualified for. Midcareer professionals from fields like banking and technology have been forced into entry-level positions at places like restaurants and stores. Or they've settled for part-time work because they can't find a 9-to-5 job. They're considered underemployed by employment analysts. And their numbers aren't reflected in the Labor Department's metrics. It is 20% of the population according to 'Gallup'. Gallup Daily tracking finds that 20.3% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed in March -- a slight uptick from the relatively flat January and February numbers. Despite the Obama administration's March 16 announcement that unemployment would remain high or increase in coming months, the underemployed in March became neither more nor less hopeful about finding work soon. Six in 10 underemployed Americans are not hopeful they will find work or move from part-time to full-time work in the next four weeks. That translates to 12% of the workforce that is both underemployed and not hopeful they will find their desired amount of work. The lack of change suggests that underemployed Americans anticipated long-term difficulties in finding work well before the administration's formal announcement was made. As emotional as this condition is, it has a more pragmatic impact on the state of the economy. WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup's daily measure of U.S. employment reveals that 19.9% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed during the month of January, translating to close to 30 million Americans who are working less than their desired capacity. Those who were underemployed reported spending 36% less than those who were employed, $48 per day versus $75 per day.

variation30 -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 11:24:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The cost of putting out a fire is what? Im asking you since you are insiting you have the information. I don't know, I haven't made too many business models regarding fire departments. but if you are curious, I'm sure you could contact any private fire service and ask them. From what I just linked you it seems that the price of putting out fires in that instance was actually 30% of what the municipality thought it should be. quote: Part of that cost of service is the prevention of other homes from catching on fire. Who will pay for that service as well? the people who own those homes, obviously. quote: Most people in this economy are having trouble paying their mortgage, let alone any insurance. Now you wish to land them with a service in case they may need a fire call. perhaps a reason people are having these difficulties (other than being foolish enough not to have a fixed rate of interest) is the gigantic portion of their wealth taken from them through taxation and through general hikes in prices due to certain laws and regulations. quote: Who will pay the salaries of the men and women who fight those fires? ...um...are you really asking this? what pays the salaries of the men and women who work in, say, a local mom and pop shop. well, the consumers do. the cost of all the resources and capital required to bring their produce to the shopper (from the fees shipping companies charge to the salaries of the mom and pop) is figured into the price of the product. likewise, a private fire department's costs, from water to fire engines to the workers' labor (which is a good) would be represented in the cost of the service - the fee they charge. this seems very elementary and I'm surprised this was even asked. quote: Will the cost per month, and you suggested, be proportionate to the size of the structure? as I said previously, I haven't drawn up any business models for private fire departments...but I will take a guess that there a many, many different ways that payment could be worked out. I could not say which would be the best. look at the history of just about any industry today. you will see competing models on all levels. after a while, the best ideas tend to be the most popular as they are the ideas which bring about the best product and service (and the best profits). quote: If a section of town is full with corporations who do not wish to pay for such a service, then what? I have a hard time believing that a 'town full of corporations' would refuse to buy a fire service. people who are savvy enough to run a business are likely to be savvy enough to realize the dangers of an uncontrollable fire to their financial well-being. but I will take your ridiculous hypothetical: then it will burn down if a fire gets started. that's what will happen. just as a 'corporation' without certain kinds of insurance stands a greater risk at huge losses than 'corporations' that have insurance (which is why every type of business plans for all of these contingencies). quote: Your theory is full of holes. I can't really get inside your head so I don't know what holes you think you have masterfully uncovered. I'll take a guess. you think that I am trying to formulate a 'theory' that will ensure that fires are a thing of the past. no, I'm not trying to do this at all. I am simply stating that any public service could just as easily be carried out by the private sector. I would argue that private fire departments would most likely do a better job than municipal ones, but that is a different discussion altogether. I'm waiting for someone who thinks they are really clever to try and drop the problem of collective action on me, it's been a while since I've heard that.

cpK69 -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 11:31:33 AM)
Ahhh. I can relate to 'underemployed', only for different reasons. Thank you for helping me to understand. : ) Kim

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 11:32:33 AM)
"In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax." __________________________________________________________________________________________ Seeing it linked to having children, it makes sense to me now. After my divorce, the EIC helped me sustain until I could finish going to school to make enough money to actually be able to make it to bein lower middle class, or upper class white trash, whichever. I do not have a clue how to make taxes "fair". It is probably impossible. I do think there are ways that we could tax items, rather than income, making it easier for those who do not have the means to be big earners to actually be able to support them selves. We need every worker, from the person cleaning the shitter at the hospital to the doctor doing the heart surgery that saves lives. IF there is a way to make them both be able to "live within their means" and have the necessities of life without having help from the gov't, I am all for it. I just admit to having no clue how that can be done. When I figure it out, I will be running for prez......I am sure I can count on your votes huh? lol thats my 2 cents, and probably shows my ignorance, but wtf. There are no easy solutions and definately there are no solutions that will make everyone happy.

tazzygirl -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 11:35:26 AM)
quote: I don't know, I haven't made too many business models regarding fire departments. but if you are curious, I'm sure you could contact any private fire service and ask them. From what I just linked you it seems that the price of putting out fires in that instance was actually 30% of what the municipality thought it should be. Yet you are insisting this is a better alternative to taxes. Not knowing doesnt make the alternative better, it makes you appear uninformed. Its not my place to prove your point. quote: Part of that cost of service is the prevention of other homes from catching on fire. Who will pay for that service as well? So because you are negligent and start a house fire, i have to pay for the prevention of that fire from spreading to my home? Yeah, i can see that going over really well. quote: perhaps a reason people are having these difficulties (other than being foolish enough not to have a fixed rate of interest) is the gigantic portion of their wealth taken from them through taxation and through general hikes in prices due to certain laws and regulations. Perhaps another reason is the downsizing, and closures, of many businesses in this economy through no fault of the employees. Not to mention, many of that level were given tax cuts over the past few years, and they still cant make it. There is enough blame to go around for everyone. quote: ...um...are you really asking this? what pays the salaries of the men and women who work in, say, a local mom and pop shop. well, the consumers do. the cost of all the resources and capital required to bring their produce to the shopper (from the fees shipping companies charge to the salaries of the mom and pop) is figured into the price of the product. likewise, a private fire department's costs, from water to fire engines to the workers' labor (which is a good) would be represented in the cost of the service - the fee they charge. this seems very elementary and I'm surprised this was even asked. You are promoting a fee based system for firefighters... what is there are no fires? Where does the money for salaries come from? I dont see that as an elementary question, except in the fact that you are so overthinking this one that the basics are slipping over your head. quote: as I said previously, I haven't drawn up any business models for private fire departments...but I will take a guess that there a many, many different ways that payment could be worked out. I could not say which would be the best. look at the history of just about any industry today. you will see competing models on all levels. after a while, the best ideas tend to be the most popular as they are the ideas which bring about the best product and service (and the best profits). You promoted this idea sa a viable solution to the current system, yet i am once again seeing the "i dont know" answer. Guesses dont cut it. quote: I have a hard time believing that a 'town full of corporations' would refuse to buy a fire service. people who are savvy enough to run a business are likely to be savvy enough to realize the dangers of an uncontrollable fire to their financial well-being. but I will take your ridiculous hypothetical: then it will burn down if a fire gets started. that's what will happen. just as a 'corporation' without certain kinds of insurance stands a greater risk at huge losses than 'corporations' that have insurance (which is why every type of business plans for all of these contingencies). Why would you have a hard time believing it? Corporations do alot of crazy things in the guise of cost savings. Sometimes closing down a plant is cheaper than running it. Burning it to the ground is even cheaper than keeping it up, allowing the company to collect the insurance proceeds. Businesses who want to keep it up and running could just as easily run their own internal fire department, having to give no beneficial help to a community one at all. So, if this line of thinking, to you, is redliculous, then by all means call it so. quote: I can't really get inside your head so I don't know what holes you think you have masterfully uncovered. Lets start with these holes and go from there.

Honsoku -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 12:04:07 PM)
From the same article; quote: The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property" So, no. They aren't getting something for nothing. Yes, some local services receive federal subsidies. However, generally speaking, the majority of funding for local services are paid for by the locals receiving them (there are exceptions in very poor/rural communities). quote: The number of households that don't pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery. In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center. quote: But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. (Emphasis added) The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15. So, in an effort to help boost the economy, the government lowered the tax rate. I would think you, Merc, of all people would be glad about this. The side effect of lowering the tax rate is that more people won't pay federal income tax. The horror.

popeye1250 -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 12:17:07 PM)
NO!!! Anyone who "wants" a tax is sick.

Musicmystery -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 2:28:06 PM)
I don't know about a complete replacement, but I have long advocated a VAT. It is regressive. But it encourages savings while taxing ability to pay (by self-selection), and circumvents the online sales tax issue. Definitely for. Lose property taxes.

Real0ne -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 3:22:29 PM)
why would anyone want to pay an inflation tax?

pahunkboy -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 3:30:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne why would anyone want to pay an inflation tax? Aint that the truth. An exciting day in the PMS. Jason Hummel did a duezy-- Justice Dept. great vid- by Bill Moloney. This train is leaving the station.

kdsub -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 3:48:37 PM)
I think it would open the new system to abuse and would be complicated. Just use a sales tax then adjust the rate each year as needed to reflect deficits or surpluses. Otherwise keep it simple. Butch

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 4:26:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I don't know about a complete replacement, but I have long advocated a VAT. It is regressive. But it encourages savings while taxing ability to pay (by self-selection), and circumvents the online sales tax issue. Definitely for. Lose property taxes. Could you please explain that green sentence? I am trying so hard to comprehend exactly what this tax would mean, and I swear I do not consider me to be an idiot (most days anyhow), but I do not get what that sentence says at all.

pahunkboy -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 4:28:40 PM)
well imagine this. Cap and trade - is freakin BACK. How many taxes is enough?

Musicmystery -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 4:34:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I don't know about a complete replacement, but I have long advocated a VAT. It is regressive. But it encourages savings while taxing ability to pay (by self-selection), and circumvents the online sales tax issue. Definitely for. Lose property taxes. Could you please explain that green sentence? I am trying so hard to comprehend exactly what this tax would mean, and I swear I do not consider me to be an idiot (most days anyhow), but I do not get what that sentence says at all. OK. Regressive means that poorer people would (arguably) pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes (the opposite of income taxes, which are progressive--the rates get higher as income rises), since a larger part of their income must be spent. Of course, food and clothing and other more necessary items could be excluded to help this. Sales taxes, similarly, are regressive. For people with higher incomes--the law of demand suggests that with a higher price (the VAT added), people will demand fewer goods (sales tax does the same thing). But, unlike income tax, if you save instead of spend, you are rewarded, essentially, with a "tax break"--i.e., an incentive to save. The U.S. has a negative savings rate, so this would help. This also means only people with money to spend, and that they wish to spend (in the broadest sense), would pay the tax--i.e., those best able to pay. Sales taxes run into a snag with online sales--out of state sales are exempt (in most places--laws are changing). This means the buyer is supposed to pay, but, of course, doesn't. Forcing an out of state seller to do so is impractical (though states are trying). Sales of goods on Indian reservations are also legally subject to taxes for non-native buyers, but enforcing this too is difficult, costing billions in lost revenue. A VAT, however, is paid before the goods ever hit the wholesalers, bypassing all the later collection issues. In short, it's a more efficient means for collecting revenue, even at current effective tax rates.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 4:55:34 PM)
Thanks! I was thinking it was like that, but I confuse easily-lol. I am all for a tax that would tax what you spend instead of what you make. To me, that would be fair, although I am sure purchasers of big ticket items would disagree.....

slvemike4u -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 5:19:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Obviously you would rather not have police services, fire departments, 911 services or a host of others taxes pay for. I would prefer to be able to choose which services I would like and pay for those and choose which services I feel I could do without and not pay for those. there is no service provided by the government which could not be provided privately. I would prefer not to have to read this sort of silliness.....but alas,it was there and I read it prior to realising I didn't really want to read it!

slvemike4u -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 5:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: variation30 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Lets say you prefer not to pay for an ambulance service. Then you discover you need one. One is available, but not to you because you made the decision not to support them. Do you honestly think in an ermergency they will look up your name and see if you have the right to utilize such a service? when the fire departments in america were privatized, what they would do is respond to fires. if the house paid the fire department for their services (which they did monthly, I believe), they were given a fire badge to put on their house. if the property had a fire badge, they would put it out. if it didn't, well - they didn't, unless the owner was present and offered to pay. they managed to do this in the mid 19th century, do you think that entrepreneurs would be incapable of privately providing fire services today (and what is more, doing a better job that municipal fire departments)? if you answered 'no', you'd be wrong: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/26/how-private-fire-departments-success-undermines-obamacare/ in a world that can produce everything from home security which alerts a private company if any windows or doors are forced open to on-star, which alerts a private company if you are in an accident...do you really think it is not feasible for people to develop business which can quickly determine whether or not a person has access to a service? private businesses like hotels, restaurants, arcades, malls could pay for these services to provide that extra bit of security to their clients (which would be factored into the price of their goods) and obviously individuals could cover themselves and their homes for this service quite easily. I really don't see how any thing the government does could not be handled by private business. quote: LOL.. and since you are in Canada, sort of makes this discussion with you moot. I find those who are incredibly young tend to have your point of view. Its that belief of invincibility that really makes me laugh. I don't understand how me being in Canada (as a landed immigrant, I'm a US citizen) makes this moot? as far as my age is concerned, if you want to superimpose your misconceptions onto me in order to dodge the substance of my posts, go right ahead...but it won't help your case. my wife who is my senior in age has an identical view to mine, is she simply a child at heart? So my asshole neighbor is sort of like you...and doesn't pay the local fire dept.....since he's not on their list,they don't come when his house sets ablaze.Well lo and behold the fire,which has a mind of its own...and doesn't give a shit....jumps houses and sets both houses on either side of the asshole(the guy like you ,who didn't pay for fire insurance)ablaze....and now I'm up shits creek hoping the fire brigade,which heretofor had ignored this blaze will get their asses here in a hurry....oh shit the cat just went up in flames....All thanks to that asshole(the guy like you,who didn't pay for fire insurance)who didn't pay for fire insurance.

servantforuse -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 5:32:26 PM)
The entire system should be scrapped and replaced with a 'flat tax'..Right now the top 10% of the wage earners pay 73% of the federal income tax. 47% of Americans pay nothing. Something has to give.

slvemike4u -> RE: Valued Added Tax Solution (4/8/2010 5:36:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The entire system should be scrapped and replaced with a 'flat tax'..Right now the top 10% of the wage earners pay 73% of the federal income tax. 47% of Americans pay nothing. Something has to give. Please read post slight above yours...no one who works(on the books) pays "nothing".This is just another in a long line of silly talking points coming from you....no substance and certainly no value. What happened to you Servant,you seem to have fallen off the deeo end?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875