Democrats Look At National Sales Tax
by Big Dog on May 27, 2009 at 21:49 Political
The Democrats never met a tax they didn’t hike and in these times of excessive spending and out of control government they need to find a new revenue source which is nothing more than a euphemism for taxes. Barack Obama vowed that 95% of us would not see a tax increase, not a dime. Then they raised tobacco taxes. One can debate the evil of tobacco use and whether people quitting is a good thing but the reality is that this was a tax increase mostly on those he said would not pay more.
There are many schemes in the works that will raise taxes of all the people he promised would not see a tax increase. The Cap and Trade will raise the cost of people’s energy because the tax increase to the businesses will be passed down to the consumers. There will be an increase in the gasoline tax or a mileage tax. And Obama is considering taxing the health care benefit provided by some employers. Astute political observers will note that this is the plan John McCain had and that Obama vehemently opposed. He said his plan was better. Looks like he does not think so now. For the record, I am opposed to the idea no matter whose it is.
There is a tax on the table that will certainly cost everyone and that includes the poorest of the poor. This is a national sales tax or a value added tax (VAT).
A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American — a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families. Washington Post
The article discusses a number of interesting things. Rahm Emanuel’s brother is consulting on this and an admission that Obama’s plan to increase taxes on the rich will NOT pay for what he wants.
He likes the idea of the VAT if they can figure a way for him to keep his promise. I don’t know how one would do that. People who sell goods have no idea how much a person makes so how could the determine who pays it and who does not?
The VAT is a terrible idea. The proponents of it claim that a 10% tax would be wonderful and result in fewer people paying income taxes and a 25% VAT would give them all they want. Of course that means for every $100 you spend on something there will be a tax of $25. A $30,000 car will cost an additional $7,500 to the consumer
The other problem is that government never gets rid of a tax. There will be the VAT and income taxes. The VAT might bring in a lot of money and they will want more so they will raise the percentage they take. It will be a mess and everyone will end up paying despite what Obama promised.
I do not think adding another tax is the answer to our problems. We need to get a handle on out of control spending and we need to limit government. We also need to revamp the tax code so that everyone pays a flat rate on income. The idea that Congress can keep spending and then show up with its hand out looking for more of our money is getting old.
But hold onto your hats because this will be on the table along with a number of other taxes. Obama promised not to tax 95% of the people but that will not happen and many people will be paying more in taxes.
It is absolutely impossible to pay for all this spending without taxing far more people than he promised when he wanted to be in the White House.
Now that he is there it is a different story. Bill Clinton did the same thing.
Some people never learn.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 95%, lies, Obama, taxes, vat
I guess I will lose weight as I will be buying less food, not driving as much, and wearing the clothes I have for years to come. However, some people will not conserve as they never learn.
“Barack Obama vowed that 95% of us would not see a tax increase…”
DAR
This is a misrepresentation.
Obama made these tax promises to people in the context of the items listed on a fiscal year tax return. He did this in reference to a tax plan that specifically addresses the income of families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
If Blake was looking for an example of what it looks like when someone takes something out of context, he has a good example in your claim.
D.
No, actually he made the 95% plainly several times, probably knowing that they would be as dishonest as they ARE being.
A VAT is terrible for the poor people he says he is for, but he doesn’t care.
13 dollars a week won’t make up for the extra money people will have to shell out for the VAT.
Both Dog and I have been saying that Barama is a thief and would do this. This is a tax, this is NOT out of context.
DAR This is a misrepresentation.
Blake No it is not- Barama said (plainly) “I want to provide a TAX CUT for 95% of Americans. If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your TAXES go up.”
Nowhere in that direct quote does he say “Income taxes”- just plain old taxes, and raising any tax is a tax increase, period.
It would also be a bit disingenuous to say that the bottom 40% pay FICA, but the rich people get over. The poor pay FICA, but they will get it back when they retire (if Barama doesn’t bankrupt us first), but the wealthy are limited in what they get back. If they earn millions, they can only get back about what is equal to someone who earned around 150,000 dollars a year. That’s a vast inequity.
“Nowhere in that direct quote does he say “Income taxes”- just plain old taxes, and raising any tax is a tax increase, period.”
DAR
Right. That’s how “out of context” works. When I provide the context, the problem disappears. When you cherry pick the “direct quote” minus context you can make there seem to be a problem.
Don’t do that. It’s not honest.
D.
Don’t attempt to tell me what is honest, D- taxes mean taxes, or do you not understand English? And these taxes AFFECT the 95% that the liar said would not be affected.
Context that.
Obama was talking about TAXES. He claimed the burden on the middle class was terrible and then he burdened them.
The context clearly shows he was referring to income taxes. The clue is provided by the context: “If you make.” Income taxes are scaled upon “what you make.” His 95% figure refers to income taxes for those “make” less than 250k.
Let’s not pretend that this is difficult to understand.
D.
So he gives us, out of the generosity of his shriveled, blackened little heart, 13 dollars a week, and then adds a VAT and that is all better?
Barama is a liar, liar, liar- A tax is a Tax is a Tax is a Tax
What part of tax do you not comprehend?
Oh, and the 250k figure is a blatant lie also.
BLK: “What part of tax do you not comprehend?>>
DAR
I paid out over $23k in income taxes last fall. I comprehend taxes quite well.
BLK: Oh, and the 250k figure is a blatant lie also.>>
DAR
Well if it’s so blatant, you shouldn’t have the slightest trouble showing this. Care to try?
Didn’t think so.
D.
Notice how Obama is always looking for new revenue streams (taxes) solve the deficit problem but never looking at cutting spending. That idea just doesn’t occur to him.
There is no talk of this tax replacing another tax, it will be in addition to what we already pay.
I don’t think that this idea will go anywhere until after the midterms, but then watch out. People aren’t going to realize what hit them. I still can not believe that a majority of Americans really want to pay higher taxes, I think they bought into Obama’s lie about 95% of Americans getting tax breaks. They must feel like suckers now.
If the people who voted for this fraud don’t feel like suckers, then their intellect is luke warm, or they are in denial, and like hardcore Nazis, won’t repudiate their failed philosophy.
“Obama’s lie about 95% of Americans getting tax breaks.”
Show this.
D.
You don’t get a tax break if you do not pay taxes, so there go at LEAST 30% of the alleged 95%- that would bring it down to 65%. FICA doesn’t count, everybody pays that. 100%.
Your logic is faulty.
BLK: “You don’t get a tax break if you do not pay taxes, so there go at LEAST 30% of the alleged 95%->>
DAR
So this group goes in the 95% group that will not have an increase.
BLK: that would bring it down to 65%. FICA doesn’t count, everybody pays that. 100%.>>
DAR
Why would the fact that everyone pays it mean it doesn’t count? That makes no sense. And the rich do not pay it “100%.” Only the working poor and middle pay it 100% because it’s capped at 102k. After that, right or wrong, the rich pay nothing.
And FICA goes into general revenue and is spent like all the rest. So it is in effect, exactly like income tax.
D.
No, FICA is and has been stolen by politicians for years, but it is definitely NOT income tax- allegedly you get it back when you or I retire. Oh, that’s a laugh.
Income tax doesn’t come back- it is used for infrastructure services, or at least it is supposed to.
You’re right. FICA is not an income tax. But it is collected and used just as income tax is. So in reality, there is little difference.
As I said: “in effect, exactly like income tax.”
D.
We have a deficit problem and need new revenue streams. Looking to correct this is a responsible thing to do.
PINK: “still can not believe that a majority of Americans really want to pay higher taxes…”
DAR
I can’t believe that either. But I don’t need to because it’s not true. Under Obama’s plan, everyone making less than 200k and 250k as a couple, get a reduction. The tiny group of immensely wealthy that have an adjusted net above that level go back to the brackets we had under Clinton which were LOWER than we had under that (apparently PINK Commie) Reagan.
What part of this is giving you trouble?
And consider:
“Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush.”
Reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html
Since Congress spends the money then it is more accurate to look at who is in control of Congress when it is spent. Democrats controlled Congress for nearly 40 years going back to well before 1959. Republicans won control in the 1980s.
Republican presidents signed bills that Democrats put forward and they were undoubtedly laden with pork.
This is not to say that Republicans of late have not gone nuts but if one is to give Clinton some kind of credit for his supposed fiscal responsibility then it is only because Republicans were in control through most of his tenure.
Congress appropriates money and they are all good at adding pork. I know Constitutional issues are tough for you because you don’t understand the Constitution but that is the way it is.
“Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html
It’s certainly not “Democratic superiority” by the mental power, that’s for sure.
We need to repeal the 16th amendment, if we are going to do this. The people should never be the government’s money machine.
I consider it my patriotic duty to work as little as possible for the government, and as much as possible for my family.
The problem the dem’s have is that the previous “moderate” republican administration and congress increased spending. So to live up to their reputation the dem’s have to increase govt spending. Oops, no money left. The dem’s can’t be outspent by republicans so the only option is to raise taxes!
The dem’s are regularly outspent by the republicans. Let me know if you would like to be buried in examples.
No, not true. Maybe in some instances and some circumstances but not historically.
And Obama and this Democratically controlled Congress just set the records.
No, Dems had control for 40 years. They spent and they are out of control doing it now.
Congress spends, not anyone else so look at spending and who is in control at the time.
Here’s an example- Barama’s Congress sets the record for deficit spending.
Spin that, D
It’s my understanding we are currently operating under Bush’s record budget deficit.
Regarding what Obama and Congress will have to do to keep the foundering ship a float, see my comments about “lag times.”
I am not comfortable with these profound deficits and haven’t been for a long time. I keep my personal debt very low and operate well in the black. My lowly status as a goat farmer/piano tuner, really doesn’t qualify me to know if these levels of spending are the right amount. I hear experts say it’s too much and others say it won’t be enough.
I don’t know. Nobody knows.
I do know these numbers are not sustainable.
And I do know that claims of republicans being good at cutting spending is a pile of, as we say, goat berries.
Goats eat grass, and they make them into berries. Don’t step in them.
D.
—————
“Today the price tag for America’s debt works out to roughly $100,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. Twenty years from now, that number may increase ten times.”
–Republican Joe Scarborough, “Rome Wasn’t Burnt in a Day”, pg. 19
“The White House’s own numbers best illustrate how shamefully the Party of Reagan has misspent our tax dollars over the last ten years. When comparing its fiscal record to that of the Clinton administration,
George W. Bush’s White House loses in a landslide.”
— Republican Joe Scarborough, “Rome Wasn’t Burnt in a Day”, pg. 27
“Using the Bush White House’s own numbers, the federal government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the federal government has grown at a staggering rate of 10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that… George Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill.”
–Republican Joe Scarborough, “Rome Wasn’t Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)
I know when you take a deficit and double down, you are NOT reducing it, you are INCREASING it- if that common sense hurts your head, you might be a Democrat.
So when conservatives said that that the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts would be an increase in taxes (since the middle class got the biggest percentage cuts it affects them most) and that there would be many other taxes raised and they were shouted down by liberals who said we were using fear and did not know what we were talking about, we were actually right. As we knew we would be all along.
The idea that Bush’s tax cuts went to the middle or the bottom was a howler Bush passed around. But he probably just didn’t know, so I am not even going to say he lied.
Note:
“I also dropped the bottom rate from fifteen percent to ten percent, because, by far, the vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.”
–G.W. Bush, getting it wrong during the first Gore debate. The bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent.
Let me know if you would like further detail and reference on this claim.
You are right that the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts will have the effect of increasing taxes. And this is as it should be. Republicans try their best to make a few people very rich, but they end up making a lot of people very poor. Bush II was so bad he even made a lot of wealthy people poor.
The rich did far better during Clinton’s time when the stock market went up 3.3 times. It went DOWN 20% under Bush. A profound and nearly unprecedented loss.
I encourage you to read this article that spells out the history on this:
“Republicans Aren’t Even Good for the Rich”
http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html
So many myths, so little time….
D.
I went through all this before and am not rehashing it. All you need to do is go tot h the office of budget and management and look at the numbers. The middle class got the biggest tax cuts.
The rich did not make out as great as you haters like to portray. The middle class got the biggest tax cuts. The numbers are published by the OBM.
Couple this with the number of lower and middle class who pay absolutely no taxes and in many cases actually get money from the federal government then you can see they have it good.
This article runs contrary to others I have read and Walter Williams is much more credible.
The stock market was up under Clinton until the dot com bubble burst.
It was up under Bush to over 14k. Once again I remind you that it was under Republican control of Congress when anything good happened under Clinton and I might as well point out that the problems that happened under Bush were after Democrats took control of Congress.
The history is quite clear, the government says the middle class made out well under the tax cuts.
The only lie is when anyone says the tax cuts were for the rich. Only a moron believes that.
BIGD: The middle class got the biggest tax cuts.>>
DAR
Rubbish.
BIGD: The rich did not make out as great as you haters like to portray.>>
DAR
I specifically said they *did not* do well under Bush. Read for comprehension. No one did. Trillions of dollars of wealth disappeared under Bush. Perhaps 20 trillion. Can’t the party that babbles about “personal responsibility” take any responsibility for their actions?
BIGD: The middle class got the biggest tax cuts.>>
DAR
With out “middle class” defined, this means nothing. And it’s wrong under any normative understanding of the term.
BIGD: Couple this with the number of lower and middle class who pay absolutely no taxes…>>
DAR
No one in the US pays “absolutely no taxes.” The taxes on the poor are better hidden but easy to see when you expose them (as I already did).
BIGD: Walter Williams is much more credible.>>
DAR
I have heard WW many times when he sat in for Limbaugh. He has no credibility. An astonishing fool. I could roast him to a crisp. Course that would never happen because of the time delay and screening and the cowardice of that program.
BIGD: The stock market was up under Clinton until the dot com bubble burst.>>
DAR
The stock market, S&P and DOW, went up 3.3x under Clinton, all bubbles and bursts included. Check your facts before you type.
BIGD: It was up under Bush to over 14k.>>
DAR
For a matter of days. What matters is not some cherry picked peak but how he left it. Bush left it at around 8,000 which is as I said, about 20% LOWER than he inherited it. If it had increased at the same rate it did under Clinton it would be above 33,000 today and I would spend a month in Jamaica rather than two weeks.
BIGD: the government says the middle class made out well under the tax cuts.>>
DAR
Everyone got hammered during Bush’s time. Even the rich. My GM stock is 75 cents today. Know how many people were heavily invested in GM?
Toyota today? $80 bucks.
Worst. President. Ever.
BIGD: The only lie is when anyone says the tax cuts were for the rich.>>
DAR
The tax cuts were overwhelmingly for the rich. I will be blunt. Your head is filled with right-wing mush. I can help. Let’s fix that now.
Observe:
***
Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
Keep the softballs coming.
Under Bush, (until the Dems got control of Congress) the market went up 36%- it was the Dems that wrecked the financial worth of America.
If you cherry pick you can probably support your 36% increase (which is pathetic btw).
Clinton’s market went up 330%. That’s nearly ten times better.
And yes, the republican congress gets some credit for that.
I have a conservative acquaintance who listened to a lot of Limbaugh during the 90’s (as did I). He doesn’t make much but he took what he had and played the stock market during the 90’s. Normally that would make for a happy story but… listening to Limbaugh he was convinced that we were always on the verge of a crash. “Clinton was going to destroy the economy.” He bet against Clinton’s market, buying “puts.” (betting that it will go down).
You did not want to bet against Clinton’s stock market. It was a rocket.
He lost his shirt. Nearly 30k I think. He got divorced. Now he mostly drinks. Still a rightwinger though! Maybe a little more humble.
D.
Don’t you just love D’s reasoning- they did it, so we can do it too- how childish, but what can you expect from a libbie.
Never said it. Best to cite what I say and respond to that rather than create a strawman.
D.
Once again Darrel, Clinton had Republicans in Congress and the spending was low because Congress appropriates the money.
I don’t think we are under a Bush budget because Congress refused to pass a budget and ran on continuing resolutions because they wanted to wait for Obama to take office. A CR funds at the previous year’s level.
The budget this year has been blown to smithereens by Obama and the Democratic Congress with the Omnibus and the Stimulus.
While Republicans spend as well as Democrats the Congress is the spending branch and the spending is always increased when Democrats control Congress.
See Bush’s 09 budget here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
Notice the chart, bottom right. Notice the difference between revenue and expenses.
BIGD: “The budget this year has been blown to smithereens by Obama…”>>
DAR
Absolutely right. And this is the hand he was dealt. Revenue is in the crapper because of a destroyed economy and the stimulus may not be enough. Or it may. Experts disagree.
But this is overwhelmingly Bush’s fault. See “lag times.” Blaming this mess on Obama, at this point, is ridiculous. Laughable.
D.
I’m not laughing, but I am pointing fingers at Barama- we might have had a deficit, but we did NOT have to spend the whatever the heck you want to call it- a stimulus it is NOT.
Bush did not cause the problems with your GM stock. That all took place with Obama in the WH. He is the one meddling int he auto companies.
The Democrats caused the economic problems and they were in control when it all went down. I believe a lot of Barry’s rich friends manipulated the market to get him a win and allow him the socialist agenda.
You have a high opinion of your ability. Williams would crush you in an economic debate.
Sorry Darrel but you are not all that you think you are. You are real good at spouting liberal talking points and sending links to places, half of which are biased or not credible.
You are just another liberal who thinks he knows everything.
As for defining the middle class, Obama did that for us. Anyone who makes under 200,000 dollars.
I understand the budgetary mess and you continue to blame it on Bush because you are trained like a parrot to keep harping. Blame it on Bush enough and it will stick.
There was no budget for this year it was all CR and Congress is responsible for the money, that was the DEMOCRATS.
This Congress set the record for spending.
NYT not credible, leftist newspaper. Standard you applied to Washington Times.
The tax cuts helped everyone but middle class the most it is in black and white at OMB. Democrats took control and screwed it all up.
The NYT’s references the CBO, a source YOU just cited as credible.
You obviously have no response to this fact so you appeal to the genetic fallacy and smear the messenger.
I did not dismiss the Wash. Times factual claims, I said I didn’t trust their opinions. I specifically said I did not doubt that they had their Nancy Pelosi quotes right but I did not trust them to have the order of events right. I don’t trust Moonies.
Obama did not define middle class as a person making 200k or less. Someone who has a *net taxable income* of 200k can be very wealthy indeed and would typically be a millionaire.
Well, until Bush came along. Now they struggle too.
BIGD: “Bush did not cause the problems with your GM stock. That all took place with Obama in the WH.”
DAR
GM stock was worth about $3 in early November of ’08. It’s was worth $3.50 on January 20, 2009. You apparently don’t know much about the history of GM stock. How did all this “take place” with Obama in the WH?
Nevermind.
D.
FICA-
Let me educate you Darrel.
The law states that SS must buy government bonds with the excess money. That money is spent and the bond becomes a worthless IOU. If the money were put aside as we could do if we could keep it then there would be no problem.
There is a cap of 106,000 after which people pay no FICA. However, there is also a cap on what one may be paid out of FICA.
How is it right to make a guy who makes 300k a year pay FICA of 6.25% when he will only get the same benefits as a guy who made 150k a year? If we raise the cap on the FICA tax then we MUST raise the benefit upper income earners are allowed to get.
Better yet, let’s do away with SS as it is and allow the money to be invested per the wishes of the payer. I have done much better with my retirement than the government has done with SS. Let the money be invested under my SS number and make a law that the government cannot touch it and I will be wealthy when I retire. Little secret, so will many others. Government does not want that, it wants subjects.
Oh if only Bush had been able to get all that SS revenue and hand it over to the Wall Street boys for them to get their handsome cut (SS overhead is extremely efficient btw), before they invested it in, for example, GM stock.
And the timing would have been perfect eh?
Just before the crash, the biggest evaporation of wealth in the history of the world.
We don’t hear about privatizing SS much any more do we? I wonder why.
If Bush had just asked me I could have saved him a lot of trouble (and jet fuel, he made over 100 trips on Air Force promoting this nonsense). His SS dreams were dead in the water. It’s the third rail.
Maybe it was the messenger. Let’s ask GW Bush to explain it:
***
“Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”
—George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005
D.
—————–
Bonus:
“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a
tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible
and they are stupid.”
– President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
A prophet. Republican wasn’t he?
The Most important challenge GM faces is to win back the trust of the tax payers. Giving away billions of tax payer money is not going to go under good sights of the consumers