Soon we will be adding the VAT tax as a way for our government to get money from us. Like the gas tax, you will not know how much you are paying as it is assessed along the way.

Pretty sneaky way to raise taxes but it will increase the cost of goods and services.

Hasn't Obama stated over and over that taxes will not increase for those under $250k? He needs to borrow a line from George Bush "Read my lips, No new taxes!"

I forgot, this is only a politicial statement to get elected.

Silly me.

Panic from Klake.. that's new.

(04-28-2010 08:19 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Panic from Klake.. that's new.

So you are saying VAT tax isn't coming?

This is just a way to hide a tax increase without people knowing they are being taxed.

I just can't believe that you approve of the way our money is spend by our government.

In and of itself, a "VAT" would have a destructive effect on America's economy (and an expansive effect on America's government), and so I'm against it.

But if I could trade the income tax for the VAT, I would do it. Hopefully, the national debate will focus on that approach.

I'm saying the Senate just passed a resolution against it (85-13), and using an off the cuff remark that he would look at all the options to help take down the deficit and that nothing is off the table is not the same as saying it's coming. Just because some GOP members are running with his comment that it works for Europe and it's a novel idea, does not make it imminent in any way. If Paul Volcker says its a good idea it doesn't mean it's going to become a law. Volcker has promoted a lot of ideas that have never become law. It's a little early to have a Klake panic attack when there is basically no evidence it's going to be in place any time soon.

Then again, the guy lowers taxes for almost all Americans and the tea parties erupted, so maybe if he raised taxes people would like him more. When you're dealing with irrational people, it's hard to tell what your best options are.

Of course, in that same interview he mentions the VAT tax when asked about it, he said the first thing he wants to do is reduce wasteful spending, but you only cherry pick the lines that support your pro-GOP crusade so you'd never mention that.

In favor of VAT if other taxes are eliminated. Why not let those that have money to spend fund the government. Make it increase revenue, but also be more fair to the middle and lower classes who need a break.

(04-28-2010 09:04 AM)niuco90 Wrote:  In favor of VAT if other taxes are eliminated. Why not let those that have money to spend fund the government. Make it increase revenue, but also be more fair to the middle and lower classes who need a break.

The middle and lower classes are also consumers. They, too, will be affected by the VAT and are the ones who can least afford it.

(04-28-2010 08:49 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I'm saying the Senate just passed a resolution against it (85-13), and using an off the cuff remark that he would look at all the options to help take down the deficit and that nothing is off the table is not the same as saying it's coming.

Sure it is. In that nothing is off the table line of thinking, is he considering repealing the newly passed healthcare bill? Remember, Health and Human Services, his people, now say it is is going to grow the deficit. Is Social Security on the table? Is cutting the Department of Education on the table? Of course not to all three. He mentioned the VAT as a way to test the waters. Remember, we've all heard how eloquent and smart he is. This wasn't a slip.

HuskieFan84 Wrote:Then again, the guy lowers taxes for almost all Americans and the tea parties erupted, so maybe if he raised taxes people would like him more. When you're dealing with irrational people, it's hard to tell what your best options are.

If you want to get specific, you can't lower taxes for people who don't pay taxes, if you are referring to income taxes.

And, since there is a slew of new taxes in the health care bill, that doesn't count as tax increases?

HuskieFan84 Wrote:Of course, in that same interview he mentions the VAT tax when asked about it, he said the first thing he wants to do is reduce wasteful spending, but you only cherry pick the lines that support your pro-GOP crusade so you'd never mention that.

Show me some specifics. Of course, the ideas the Repubs had to chase down fraud in Medicare, that he lauded at the dog and pony show debate, didn't make it into the final bill since it got jammed through via reconciliation. So, he loses credibility there.

Niuco.. the vat does not help the lower class. The lower class barely pays federal taxes as it is. As much as tea partiers want to complain, the lower class and most of the middle class in this country gets off pretty easy w/ income taxes, a change to vat would most likely increase their share of the tax burden. Which is why it won't happen.

Klake just needed an issue to start one of his bash Obama threads, its been a few days, this is a bit of a reach even for him though. No way this happens right now, especially in an election year.

(04-28-2010 08:45 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  In and of itself, a "VAT" would have a destructive effect on America's economy (and an expansive effect on America's government), and so I'm against it.

But if I could trade the income tax for the VAT, I would do it. Hopefully, the national debate will focus on that approach.

(04-28-2010 08:49 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I'm saying the Senate just passed a resolution against it (85-13), and using an off the cuff remark that he would look at all the options to help take down the deficit and that nothing is off the table is not the same as saying it's coming. Just because some GOP members are running with his comment that it works for Europe and it's a novel idea, does not make it imminent in any way. If Paul Volcker says its a good idea it doesn't mean it's going to become a law. Volcker has promoted a lot of ideas that have never become law. It's a little early to have a Klake panic attack when there is basically no evidence it's going to be in place any time soon.

Then again, the guy lowers taxes for almost all Americans and the tea parties erupted, so maybe if he raised taxes people would like him more. When you're dealing with irrational people, it's hard to tell what your best options are.

Of course, in that same interview he mentions the VAT tax when asked about it, he said the first thing he wants to do is reduce wasteful spending, but you only cherry pick the lines that support your pro-GOP crusade so you'd never mention that.

In order to have your taxes lowered, you have to pay taxes to begin with. Under Obama's mathematics, when someone who pays no income tax gets an EIC credit, he calls that a tax cut. Also, the newly unemployed are no longer paying taxes on their earnings, as they now have none, so their taxes have gone down.

Now he says he wants to reduce wasteful spending after increasing the deficit to 3 trillion, taking over health care, and giving away bailout after bailout. I do not think he has ever seen any government spending that he would consider wasteful. The war (I mean "contingency operation") still wages on. He hinted at making cuts in NASA, before he proposed a manned mission to Mars.

Under Obama's utopian vision, people do not work to increase their own wealth and security. He considers that to be selfish and greedy. Instead they work to curry favor with a supreme government entity, who will distribute handouts on the basis of who has the most gut-wrenching sob story, the biggest voting block, or the most powerful lobbyists. That's what he means by "spreading the wealth around".

The TEA partiers see this, and you think they should thank Obama for the handouts? If a mugger steals your wallet and car, but he gives you a couple dollars back, so you can take the bus home, do you thank him?

Specifics of what? The quote or the interview that has Klake's panties in a bunch?

Show me specifics of where he's putting the VAT into place? You won't find them because he's only considered it an option, like anything else on the table because he's taking in an ideas from a wide range of people. I know.. it's a ridiculous notion for a president to be willing to listen to a wide range of ideas.

Of course he can't lower taxes for those who didn't pay taxes at all, but most American's did pay some taxes, and for 95% of them, their taxes went down with Obama in office.

Quote: More than 94 percent of all working families and individuals received this tax cut. "Changes to the $1,000 per-child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit gave an average of $872 each to 12 million, mostly low-income working families with children." The only group not seeing major tax cuts under this Administration's tax policies are the top 1% of all income earners in the U.S, and even then about 29% of those people can expect a tax liability reduction. 56% of the Bush tax cuts went to the top 5% of all income earners in the United States.

http://ctj.org/pdf/truthaboutobamataxcuts.pdf

Chase down fraud in Medicare? Where administration costs are 2% compared to standard health insurance companies 10%+. Let's focus on the big fish, medicare fraud / administration costs that the GOP was going after were minimal compared to the things they voted against. Your medicare fraud costs are drops of water in an ocean. And yes.. I've read Robert Book's propaganda piece for the Heritage Foundation, that argues that the administration costs are not lower. The Congressional Budget Office rebuked it pretty handily so don't waste my time with that garbage.

Fraud was not the problem.. this is the problem:

Quote:In international perspective, the United States spends nearly six times as much per capita on health care administration as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations. Nearly all of this discrepancy is due to the sales, marketing, and underwriting activities of our highly fragmented framework of private insurance, with its diverse billing and review practices.

-Jacob Hacker

Hilarious for someone to dismiss a Heritage publication as "propaganda" and "garbage" in the same post citing Citizens for Tax Justice -- not to mention Jacob Hacker (!!!) -- as some sort of reliable authority.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

The articles I linked to had graphs and numbers provided by the Congressional Budget office among others, you don't need to read their opinions.

(04-28-2010 10:02 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(04-28-2010 08:45 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  In and of itself, a "VAT" would have a destructive effect on America's economy (and an expansive effect on America's government), and so I'm against it.

But if I could trade the income tax for the VAT, I would do it. Hopefully, the national debate will focus on that approach.

(04-28-2010 08:49 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I'm saying the Senate just passed a resolution against it (85-13), and using an off the cuff remark that he would look at all the options to help take down the deficit and that nothing is off the table is not the same as saying it's coming. Just because some GOP members are running with his comment that it works for Europe and it's a novel idea, does not make it imminent in any way. If Paul Volcker says its a good idea it doesn't mean it's going to become a law. Volcker has promoted a lot of ideas that have never become law. It's a little early to have a Klake panic attack when there is basically no evidence it's going to be in place any time soon.

Then again, the guy lowers taxes for almost all Americans and the tea parties erupted, so maybe if he raised taxes people would like him more. When you're dealing with irrational people, it's hard to tell what your best options are.

Of course, in that same interview he mentions the VAT tax when asked about it, he said the first thing he wants to do is reduce wasteful spending, but you only cherry pick the lines that support your pro-GOP crusade so you'd never mention that.

In order to have your taxes lowered, you have to pay taxes to begin with. Under Obama's mathematics, when someone who pays no income tax gets an EIC credit, he calls that a tax cut. Also, the newly unemployed are no longer paying taxes on their earnings, as they now have none, so their taxes have gone down.

Now he says he wants to reduce wasteful spending after increasing the deficit to 3 trillion, taking over health care, and giving away bailout after bailout. I do not think he has ever seen any government spending that he would consider wasteful. The war (I mean "contingency operation") still wages on. He hinted at making cuts in NASA, before he proposed a manned mission to Mars.

Under Obama's utopian vision, people do not work to increase their own wealth and security. He considers that to be selfish and greedy. Instead they work to curry favor with a supreme government entity, who will distribute handouts on the basis of who has the most gut-wrenching sob story, the biggest voting block, or the most powerful lobbyists. That's what he means by "spreading the wealth around".

The TEA partiers see this, and you think they should thank Obama for the handouts? If a mugger steals your wallet and car, but he gives you a couple dollars back, so you can take the bus home, do you thank him?

You pay taxes on unemployment.

Not to worry, I trust that our new Socialist goverment will find a way to give VAT refunds to all the people not paying taxes currently:)

(04-28-2010 08:45 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  In and of itself, a "VAT" would have a destructive effect on America's economy (and an expansive effect on America's government), and so I'm against it.

But if I could trade the income tax for the VAT, I would do it. Hopefully, the national debate will focus on that approach.

Are you high - really?

Do you the federal government would ever get rid of income tax? Although 44% of people pay NO income tax. Ironically the same % who want the "rich" to pay there fair share.

VAT has not done well to help economies in Europe - so BO will take that as a success.

Like any tax increase, it has a short term benefit but then when all that extra money is pissed away, we will need to increas the VAT rate just like Europe.