VAT or Income Tax, VAT only helps the wealthy

Here is an article explaining what Romney wants to do

Forbes - Since Romney Is Willing to Consider a VAT, Should Libertarians and Conservatives Be Willing to Consider Him?

He also said he would want to eliminate other parts of the tax code. This is how it works, a VAT is like a sales tax; but, it is placed on a product during each part of it's creation. The tax effects you based on how much you buy and not how much income you make; therefore, it falls on everyone. It would be like charging everyone $10,000 a year in taxes regardless of how much they make. Romney would get his wish, he would be able to tax the 47% that don't currently pay taxes, the homeless, minimum wage earners making under $15,000 a year or so; but, people such as him that live off stock dividends would pay nothing except the $15,000 regardless of how much they made.

Wikipedia - Value added tax

reply to post by AQuestion

Thank you! I haven't heard the VAT even brought up in a good long while, thanks for spotting it.

I wonder if "willing to consider it" is the same as "what Romney wants to do?" Maybe I'm falling for a line, but I think he should be considering that, a flat tax, a national sales tax, and every other type of tax. Sometimes you have to take a fresh look at the old ideas.

You're right that it would fall on everyone, but I assume there would be a refund or credit based on income to protect the very poor, or perhaps no tax on food, medicine and clothing, I don't know.

I wonder if the rich would be paying more with a VAT because they buy more, and more expensive, stuff. I don't think they would be limited to the same $15,000 (or whatever) as everyone else. If they bought a million dollar yacht, I would expect they would pay a ton.

I think it would be a difficult tax to administer and cause some accounting headaches, but I guess I don't mind that he's thinking about it.

I'm stiil kind of attracted to the post card tax form. You know: Line 1 How much money did you make? Line 2 Subtract $25,000. Line 3 Send in 15% of what's left.

VAT is the most unfair tax
VAT has to be considered for two people who buy the same product (it has always been evaluated this way by the statistics institutes everywhere on earth and beyond) : if Mitt Romney or yourself buys a iPhone, you will pay the same amount of money, and this is just disgusting. I don't even speak about the yacht, you will never be able to pay yourself a yacht...
The VAT (which is said to be invented by the French...) is now fancied by the rich and they try to stuff people's mind with the idea it is a fair tax, but they do know it is not.

reply to post by charles1952


Dear charles1952,

I actually prefer a flat tax, 20% for everyone making regardless of how they make their income, unless they are on social security, welfare or disability. It is just silly to tax people who receive their income from the government because we can just adjust how much they get and not have to process all the forms. And I would not give any deductions to people. I could live with don't tax the first $15,000 or whatever number we determined was subsistence living.

As for the rich buying more, they buy much less than they make and many don't "buy" anything, their trusts buy it. I would tax trust income and even though I preach, I would tax churches the exact same amount. That will probably anger some of my fellow Christians; but, Jesus said to give to Caesar that which is his and showed the coin of the realm. It would have the added benefit of getting rid of some of the blood sucking christian preachers that are just in it for the money. I should also point out that there are many churches that do not file for the deductions already.

reply to post by AQuestion

Dear AQuestion,

Yes! That's how to do it. Start with something simple like the flat tax, run it through the computers and economists to get an idea of what would happen with it, then tinker with it to meet pressing social demands, consider adding a deduction or two, maybe for medical expenses, make it as perfect as you can, then try it on a different tax base such as a three tier progressive tax, or anything else that can be thought up.

As for the rich buying more, they buy much less than they make and many don't "buy" anything, their trusts buy it.

I don't see that as a problem, tax the trusts at the same rate as people.

For churches? Tax the preacher and the trusts, but let the church spend tax-free on their truly charitable activities. The government would probably be doing it if the church didn't, and the donations to the church have already been taxed to the people giving it. You'd be taxing the money twice.

But all that can be worked out. Above all else, keep it simple. There should be two goals, take in enough money, and put all tax attorneys out of business.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Dear charles1952,

For churches? Tax the preacher and the trusts, but let the church spend tax-free on their truly charitable activities. The government would probably be doing it if the church didn't, and the donations to the church have already been taxed to the people giving it. You'd be taxing the money twice.

While I do not get paid for preaching (none in our church do, we actually pay in more, we have a small church with poor members), I believe preachers do pay taxes on their personal income even when made from the church. Income is taxed and not when we take care of others, that is merely an expense and I don't think we should have any deductions other than as we previously discussed. Our lead pastor and I have discussed this and he is in agreement with me. I don't want any tax deduction that can be used to dictate what I can and cannot say which is how the current system works. A preacher is not allowed to support a candidate from the pulpit or the church loses it's non-profit status. Now, I don't support any candidates; but, eventually it will be used to dictate what we can say in other areas. My only request is that if we are going to eliminate deductions and tax churches at the same rate as people then we should tax corporations at the same rate as people and eliminate all deductions for them.

Flat tax, VAT tax and all these other so-called "fair" taxes would destroy what little upward mobility this country has left. The rich, elite and Mitt Romney have in their head to fool you with these bogus claims of it's fairness. It requires you to accept pure ideological simplicity. Saying "Look it is easy to understand and follow." The truth is we had this and changed to a Progressive tax system because it is better for the economy as a whole. A sizable chunk of which the investor class gets back as profit.

Want it illustrated? Just take a moment and consider what happens at tax time. Millions of middle class families file their taxes, after working their way through all the deductions for owning a home, donating to charity, and deducting their overindulged undereducated demon spawn get a nice refund. They then use that money frequently to pay off the Christmas bills they rang up, and go and buy items that they would not normally buy during the course of the year. Like Big Screen TV's, maybe a down payment on a car. It is an annual economic shot in the arm for the economy, which turns up as pure continuing profit for the investor class.

Originally posted by AQuestion
Here is an article explaining what Romney wants to do...

The VAT is a horrible structure and just as corrupt as our current behemoth of a tax code and let us be honest here; the income tax in its current form is well entrenched and by all accounts, the VAT would just be levied right on top of the existing code.

Here is how politicians are thinking (and Romney needs to dump whoever is feeding him the idea that VAT is the solution): VAT + consumer spending @ 70% of GNP = $$$$$$$. The thing is, we don't have a revenue problem when it comes to taxes taken in, we have a spending problem.

In my opinion consumption tax with rebates is the better way to go and still tax business on their profits and capital gains (at a low rate). Obviously overly simplistic view....

VAT is garbage.
An inclined set tax is really the best way in my opinion.
Lowest income pays a small percentage.
Highest income pays a high percentage.
The scale goes up as the wealth goes up.
Nobody is exempt.
Nobody gets to deduct anything but themselves and dependent family members
A billionaire would still be rich as hell after paying taxes but he would pay his full percentage.
A person living at the bottom might only pay a few dollars but he would still contribute something.

Along with closing all of the loopholes we need to get back to a mindset of responsibility.
I'd say there should be a minimum tax on every single citizen or resident of the US. It's not the dollar amount here that matters. It's the principle behind it. Nobody gets a free ride. Everyone contributes.
One dollar for people below the poverty level and it goes up from there.

Just my thoughts.

Originally posted by jeanne75018
VAT is the most unfair tax
VAT has to be considered for two people who buy the same product (it has always been evaluated this way by the statistics institutes everywhere on earth and beyond) : if Mitt Romney or yourself buys a iPhone, you will pay the same amount of money, and this is just disgusting. I don't even speak about the yacht, you will never be able to pay yourself a yacht...
The VAT (which is said to be invented by the French...) is now fancied by the rich and they try to stuff people's mind with the idea it is a fair tax, but they do know it is not.

edit on 20/10/2012 by jeanne75018 because: typo

Sin Tax

April 1 2009

The first major tax increase from the president who promised no tax increases on 95 percent of the population goes into effect today, April 1. This is not an April Fool's Day joke - this is a tax increase that hits approximately 21 percent of adults age 18 and over, regardless of income level, and approximately 20 percent of teenagers, many of whom are not normally considered to be among the ranks of taxpaying citizens.

The federal tax, an increase of 62 cents per pack of cigarettes, starts April 1. Here's how this translates into actual numbers, using the assumption that the average smoker smokes one pack of cigarettes per day.

At one pack a day, the average smoker will pay an additional 62 cents per day, or $226.30 per year in additional tax. The smoker who smokes two packs per day will pay an additional $452.60 per year in tax. There are no deductions allowed that might lower this tax. There are no credits available for people who are on a fixed income or who are out of work.

The Americans for Tax Reform Web site mention the following statistics:

•55 percent of smokers are considered to be "working poor."
•One in four smokers lives below the poverty line.
•On average, smokers, whose median income is a little more than $36,000, make about 30 percent less
than non-smokers.

Sweet Tax

In late July, Men's Health Editor Peter Moore sat down with President Obama in the Oval Office to talk health care reform. The most controversial part of the interview was on the subject of sin taxes--that is, taxing soda and other sugar-laden products, or on activities that sabotage the health of the masses.

Here's what the President told us: "I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring. There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda. And every study that's been done about obesity shows that there is as high a correlation between increased soda consumption and obesity as just about anything else. Obviously it's not the only factor, but it is a major factor.

And you guys are complaining about VAT...lol

I find this statement very troublesome.

if Mitt Romney or yourself buys a iPhone, you will pay the same amount of money, and this is just disgusting. I don't even speak about the yacht, you will never be able to pay yourself a yacht...

Are you suggesting that a loaf of bread should cost more or less based on how much a person makes? We all know that the tax system works that way, but do you want to see that same system in all aspects of life? So for me should an IPhone should cost 1000 bucks on a 100 dollar plan per month and some poor person should get it for 50 buck on a 10 dollar plan per month?

Consumption tax is scaled too...if you consume you pay tax...if you do not consume you don't pay. Rich people consume a lot...BTW.

As Obama creates and raises taxes on fat and sugar products, Liquor and smoke products, and many other things that all seem to be heavily utilized by the poor more than the rich, which group is actually being taxed here?

The bottom line is poor people do not "need" an IPhone nor a yacht, but it seems many items that are luxury are considered some kind of fundamental right to have today.

People should live a lifestyle of what they can afford...most Americans think their lifestyle should be much higher than what their pocketbook suggests and that is their down fall.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Here is how politicians are thinking (and Romney needs to dump whoever is feeding him the idea that VAT is the solution): VAT + consumer spending @ 70% of GNP = $$$$$$$. The thing is, we don't have a revenue problem when it comes to taxes taken in, we have a spending problem.

In my opinion consumption tax with rebates is the better way to go and still tax business on their profits and capital gains (at a low rate). Obviously overly simplistic view....

I would like to see a flat tax that still has an option for charities. (flat tax will kill charities and I don't want that to happen) and a consumption tax of some kind. Since rich people consume a hell of a lot more they would be paying a hell of a lot more.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx

Want it illustrated? Just take a moment and consider what happens at tax time. Millions of middle class families file their taxes, after working their way through all the deductions for owning a home, donating to charity, and deducting their overindulged undereducated demon spawn get a nice refund.

Well first, if you get a refund you just gave the Government a interest free loan...lol

Let's say all said and done they pay 8% in the end...why not just tax them 8%? A flat tax would be a much lower tax amount. They can even pay 10% into it so they get their precious refund. One way they need to jump through many hoops in a complicated tax code with 50k people working for IRS to check their work, and the other way they just pay 8% each month and 1 guy at IRS is now needed...lol

They then use that money frequently to pay off the Christmas bills they rang up, and go and buy items that they would not normally buy during the course of the year. Like Big Screen TV's, maybe a down payment on a car. It is an annual economic shot in the arm for the economy, which turns up as pure continuing profit for the investor class.

You are suggesting that people can not save per month and so they need someone to hold their hand and force them to save with this type of tax system...I find that ass backwards to say the least.

reply to post by Xtrozero


I guarantee that public opinion would sway on the Income Tax if we rid the system of 'withholding' and go back to paying our taxes each month or each pay period. People might just question why the Government needs so much money and we receive so little in return.

The system is rigged to the nature of 'out of sight, out of mind' and we are now conditioned to think such notions as "take home pay" and "tax refunds"....

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

The system is rigged to the nature of 'out of sight, out of mind' and we are now conditioned to think such notions as "take home pay" and "tax refunds"....

Lol ya write a check each month and people would freak. Consumption tax is an also in your face tax and if anything people would start to criticize spending.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Well first, if you get a refund you just gave the Government a interest free loan...lol

This is true, but the Average American isn't really bright enough to figure that out. Nor are they wealthy enough to hire a tax adviser to explain it to them.

Let's say all said and done they pay 8% in the end...why not just tax them 8%? A flat tax would be a much lower tax amount. They can even pay 10% into it so they get their precious refund. One way they need to jump through many hoops in a complicated tax code with 50k people working for IRS to check their work, and the other way they just pay 8% each month and 1 guy at IRS is now needed...lol

It isn't all that simple, it just looks that simple. First a flat tax will never be a lower amount for the working and poor classes. Through credits and deductions most get back more than what they have paid in, which creates a different argument for a different thread. With a VAT tax the amount becomes ever higher as retailers escalate prices to offset the cost of the tax. You are correct that the tax code can be simplified, but you still have to be careful in how exactly it is you simplify it. Romney's plan will crush what little economic activity we have.

You are suggesting that people can not save per month and so they need someone to hold their hand and force them to save with this type of tax system...I find that ass backwards to say the least.

I don't have to suggest that, it is a well known fact and has been a growing one for decades now. You can argue the virtues of it till the cows come home but that is the reality. Right now people are making do with less and less income for more and more work, and Romney is one of the men responsible for fostering that business practice. Until that changes savings will be depressed, consumer spending will be depressed and each following generation will not do as well or better than the one that preceded it. And we are already starting to feel and see the effects of that.

It is pretty clear that the VAT will drive up the cost of goods and services and in today's struggling econonmy that would be terrible. I have heard people talk about a "flat tax" which sounds like a good option, but there will be loopholes and ways around paying for some people. I support the Fair Tax plan that is a consumption tax instead of an income tax. Those that spend the most would be taxed the most, no loopholes and it also abolishes the IRS. That alone would save billions in the budget. The Fair Tax is supported by Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president.