Thread: VAT

**James48843** · 05-03-2010, 03:51 PM

just an FYI- in a budget extension last week, the Senate and the House both passed an extension bill, that contained the following language. It pretty much kills any talk of a VAT in the future. Here is the exact wording which was passed in both houses, and was sent to the President- which he signed:

SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A VALUE ADDED TAX.

It is the sense of the Senate that the Value Added Tax is a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery and the Senate opposes a Value Added Tax.

No doubt- you can consider it quashed.

It became Public Law 111-157 last week.

**tsptalk** · 05-03-2010, 04:21 PM

Excellent!

**nnuut** · 05-03-2010, 04:23 PM

Double EXCELLENT!!! bananadancing.gif

**grandma** · 05-03-2010, 06:14 PM

Whew!
Whee!

**Scout333** · 05-03-2010, 06:22 PM

SEC. 11. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A VALUE ADDED TAX.

It is the sense of the Senate that the Value Added Tax is a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery and the Senate opposes a Value Added Tax.

Originally Posted by Scout333

The VAT is an evil little bugger. Mainly because of the way it functions. It generally applies at every level of production and sales which increases the tax cost of virtually everything you buy. Before you realize it more than 50% of the cost of an item is Tax. A hidden tax at that. No one should be in favor of this method. Too easy to raise enormous amounts of revenue with a small increase in the rate. i.e. a 1-2% rate increase could generate $ 100s of billions of revenue. It is also regressive with a disproportionate effect on lower to middle income folks.

i.e. those of us who spend a big part of our disposable income on necessities.

Looks like we may have dodged a bullet on this one!

**Frixxxx** · 05-03-2010, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Scout333

Looks like we may have dodged a bullet on this one!

"WE"?, this just means another reason for a distribution of wealth tax. Tax the rich to pay for the poor.

1) Define what we are paying for in concrete numbers.

2) Budget accordingly.

3) Require EVERY politician to define revenues BEFORE enacting a law. (including ammendments)

4) Pay for the law until it can't be paid for. Stop..Stop...Stop

I do not see an issue with this style of government, except no one is doing it?

**Scout333** · 05-03-2010, 07:30 PM

Frixxx, Major problem with this method is that it makes it even easier for the POLs to access our accounts and raise funds for new programs, etc. The fact that it is also regressive gives us some protection from this method. i.e. no politician will want to explain to their non-taxpaying constituents that this will cost them money. Also, this would be an add-on tax in addition to income and estate taxes. There has been no conversation about using the VAT as a replacement tax. IMHO this is a horrible idea.

Too easy to raise enormous amounts of revenue with a small increase in the rate. i.e. a 1-2% rate increase could generate $ 100s of billions of revenue. It is also regressive with a disproportionate effect on lower to middle income folks. i.e. those of us who spend a big part of our disposable income on necessities.

**Frixxxx** · 05-03-2010, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Scout333

Frixxx, Major problem with this method is that it makes it even easier for the POLs to access our accounts and raise funds for new programs, etc. The fact that it is also regressive gives us some protection from this method. i.e. no politician will want to explain to their non-taxpaying constituents that this will cost them money. Also, this would be an add-on tax in addition to income and estate taxes. There has been no conversation about using the VAT as a replacement tax. IMHO this is a horrible idea.

Too easy to raise enormous amounts of revenue with a small increase in the rate. i.e. a 1-2% rate increase could generate $ 100s of billions of revenue. It is also regressive with a disproportionate effect on lower to middle income folks. i.e. those of us who spend a big part of our disposable income on necessities.

Scout, I agree, I was saying that only TAXPAYERS dodged the bullet. Barely half of the citizens of the country pay taxes....We need something a little more "fair", like a fair tax!

**Scout333** · 05-03-2010, 08:05 PM

Sounds like we are on the same wavelength!

"Don't mind a progressive system. i.e. The more you make the higher % you pay but everyone should pay something. It is especially abhorrent to get refunds when you've paid nothing into the pot. "

**James48843** · 05-03-2010, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by Frixxxx

Scout, I agree, I was saying that only TAXPAYERS dodged the bullet. Barely half of the citizens of the country pay taxes....We need something a little more "fair", like a fair tax!

It is not true that barely half of the citizens of the country pay taxes. The vast majority of citizens pay taxes- through payroll taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, etc. What you are referring to is the Federal Income tax, which is just one of many taxes people pay.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/who-pays-taxes

p.s--i could go for a flat-rate "fair tax".

But it will never happen. Way too many lawyers and accountants make too much money off the current 75,000 page tax code to allow it to be simplified.

**Frixxxx** · 05-03-2010, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by James48843

What you are referring to is the Federal Income tax, which is just one of many taxes people pay.

p.s--i could go for a flat-rate "fair tax".

But it will never happen. Way too many lawyers and accountants make too much money off the current 75,000 page tax code to allow it to be simplified.

You are right, everyone benefits from the federal government and the "protection" they provide. When people are exempt, that is wrong.

Thanks for the fair tax vote!