Thread: All things being equal would you vote for a VAT?

Originally Posted by ChrisL

True. But I assume the top 10% are paying less percentage wise in taxes than the bottom 90% are at present. If that's true than my retort to your rhetorical question about how much more should the super rich be expected to pay would be something like "A lot more.". I don't advocate taking the majority of the super rich's wealth for distribution to the poor, etc. IF the super rich are in fact paying significantly LESS percentage wise in taxes than the remaining 90% than any whining by them or their proponents at the notion of the super rich paying more in taxes get a bunch of these from me . That's all I'm saying.

Chris L

I personally don't believe anyone should pay a larger percentage in taxes than ANYONE else. That is why a flat tax is what I would ultimately want; however, it will never happen because all the people at the IRS would have to be dumped out on the streets. I haven't had a job yet this year and am looking at the possibility of going down the tubes - again - but I don't begrudge wealthy successful people the right to keep the same percentage of their income as I will keep when I am flipping burgers and asking if you want frys with that.

Historically there always has been a class of wealthy individuals and a class of those with virtually nothing. This isn’t going to change for a variety of sociological reasons; however, the rise of the middle class and subsequent rise of the poorer class is a direct result of the wealthier class making more money. A poor person in this country would be considered wealthy in other parts of the world. This is because of capitalism and a tax structure which (at times) allows for rapid and sustained growth because of the availability of capital through investment, savings and even spending by the wealthy.

There has to be an ongoing growing pool of investment capital for a business to borrow and grow. This comes from the savings and investments of the wealthy class. A flat tax is the only truly equitable solution which will allow economic growth. Otherwise we might just as well redistribute the wealth as the Communists advocate.

i would argue that at the end of the day for any practical purpose it makes no difference how much money you make and how much taxes you pay.

what matters is what you can buy with whatever money you are left with, which is determined by your sicioeconomic position relative to everybody else.

so i consider all this tax the rich, or tax the poor talk is just another exercise in futility for all the participants except the ones who get paid by keeping it going.

Why don't those ba$t@*$ds make some sacrifices before they ask for one more penny out of our overtaxed asses? We should demand a cleanup in corruption 1rst. It is way out of control. Local levels too. At least that is why I am American.
Mike

Originally Posted by Bruno

A revolution will not suddenly revive a housing market that has gone down the toilet because of the economic crisis, caused in significant part because of rotten mortgages.

No but it would eliminate that government that is taking an ever greater propotion of what I earn and am worth. They have manipulated the system to the point where even when my income and real net worth is decreasing they still get more money out of me. I'm just asking how many times can you squeeze this stone before it cuts your hand.

Originally Posted by Kingfish

Why don't those ba$t@*$ds make some sacrifices before they ask for one more penny out of our overtaxed asses? We should demand a cleanup in corruption 1rst. It is way out of control. Local levels too. At least that is why I am American.
Mike

well, if something can't happen locally it won't happen at all.
'demanding' is easy on the internet, but when it comes to actually doing something things start getting 'complicated'.
tim was complaining of local taxes in earlier post - i can't think of more accountability than from the people who decide on those.
so if you can't influence your local level you can't influence anything.

i recently watched some episodes of the tv show 'parks and recreation' - it was very amusing to see a caricature of a local government. i really enjoyed the bit of people jumping on a 'good idea' and then realizing that 'it's just too much work', 'doesn't concern them personally', 'they would rather do something else instead' etc....

i guess if you try your hand of community organizing one day you can be the president

Originally Posted by singlewedge

The question is one of how to pay for everything that we as a country like to buy and spend for. Increase the taxes on those making over $250,000 a year (sorry if there is anyone here in that catagory), decrease them for those making less and add a VAT to everything except food.

here in the UK vat works fine. its useful to add though that we don't vat everything and food isn't the only exception. books, and baby clothes are another couple i can think of. also, for those saying it's unfair, there is a system in place so that people like farmers can claim their VAT back. and quite honestly, retailers will after a while just drop their prices a bit so you can still have the $1.99 headline despite the vat.

Ciao,
MisterDavid


EDIT: also, it's quite amusing how many people go on about less and less tax...tax is very necessary, and I'm happy for everyone to pay it. there is no legitimate argument for the government using tax as a way of population control (i.e. have more/less kids) there was an argument her in the UK for a while as to whether things that are bad for you should be taxed more etc....NO. tax is a way of generating income so that government and society can effectively function. that means yes we should pay tax so that we can have public transport, art museums, roads and power when we flick the switch, to name but a few, but poorer people should definitely pay less, otherwise they are not being allowed to effectively function. strike a balance. however, no-one should ever pay more than 45% tax.

I have an idea. let's destroy small buisness and all the people who drive the economy and give more to Washington. Oh we already did that.(Not blaming one party or the other, we all need to stick together)
M

Originally Posted by MisterDavid

that means yes we should pay tax so that we can have public transport, art museums, roads and power when we flick the switch, to name but a few, but poorer people should definitely pay less, otherwise they are not being allowed to effectively function. strike a balance. however, no-one should ever pay more than 45% tax.

If poorer people make enough money to function after they pay their taxes that argument would be void. may be the lower taxes that they pay are partially responsible with them being happy with lower salaries?
The past few weekends i went to a lot of great museums, only one was paid by my taxes. since that prevents them from charging money for entrance they still have booths where you get your ticket and are asked to give a donation in exchange for it. You don't have to do it, but I didn't see anybody who didn't. The suggested donations were also more expensive than at the other museums which do not get government support.
There are many ways to get effectively the same result and the pro- or against- arguments often make no sense to me.

Originally Posted by Kingfish

I have an idea. let's destroy small buisness and all the people who drive the economy and give more to Washington. Oh we already did that.(Not blaming one party or the other, we all need to stick together)
M

Uhm, I don't understand your logic in making this statement. Do you have any data that suggests increased taxes have destroyed the american small business or that small business is driving the american economy? I mean compared to say large business being more efficient and thus more competitive than small business.
Last I checked nobody is forcing anybody to shop at Wal-mart, eat at McDonalds or buy a car or computer made by a big corporation.

Originally Posted by gugi

well, if something can't happen locally it won't happen at all.
'demanding' is easy on the internet, but when it comes to actually doing something things start getting 'complicated'.
tim was complaining of local taxes in earlier post - i can't think of more accountability than from the people who decide on those.
so if you can't influence your local level you can't influence anything.

i recently watched some episodes of the tv show 'parks and recreation' - it was very amusing to see a caricature of a local government. i really enjoyed the bit of people jumping on a 'good idea' and then realizing that 'it's just too much work', 'doesn't concern them personally', 'they would rather do something else instead' etc....

i guess if you try your hand of community organizing one day you can be the president

You are so right about people need to get more involved. It is the local and state levels that make the most difference in our lives. Band wagon jumping is too easy. Point taken.
Mike