Would a VAT help lower the debt?

I was reading an article in one of those little magazine they put in your Sunday paper about how other countries use a VAT (Value Added Tax) to pay for things.

Would a VAT work for the United States if we exempted groceries and pharmaceuticals that would unfairly target the poor, and products businesses that employ people need to keep running?

The gist of the article seemed to be against it because it would give the congress too much money and then we would have more social programs.

Just curious from those who may have looked into this deeper.

I am for lowering the debt.. and I am for raising the caps on Social Security.

If other countries are using these types of optional choice taxes (not SS, I realize that)to balance their books, would it work here?


This is a Wiki explanation of VAT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

Yes it really has helped with our deficit.

to balance the budget, that why have we not done this before.

VAT is republican bullshit. To pay our debts the tax would be so high no one would buy anything and what is left of our consumer economy would collapse.
Let's get the money from the people that have it, the poor and working people are already over burdened. This is nonsense get a grip.

Whether any given tax does this fairly and in the best interest of society is the question.

unfair.

But we have to be willing to step up here fairly quickly, and find a way to bring some balance to this budget.

Well, UN-like Canada, they can't give US ALL (the bottom 95%) checks to compensate.

children's clothes too quite aside from insurance of any type. That's how it done in the UK inclusive of the ones you mentioned but groceries only refers to fresh foods - so cakes for example but not biscuits.

It seems if it works in places like Canada and the UK and France, we should be able to tweak it here..and exactly take into consideration items that you just put up.. thank you

Its a simple broad based tax system. Effectively you're only paying tax on what you use as a result of which the rich obviously pay more in aggregate than the poor. It is however one of the factors which makes petrol and diesel so expensive compared with yours for example. Having said that fuel pricing is pretty uniform thoughout Europe.

I did read once that our IR does some sort of deal with those earning over £ million a year.

If we add a VAT tax, then the poor and middle class would be subsidizing the wealth of the top 1% even more.

A graduated income tax is the fairest way for each income tax to pay his/her fair share. Under the REpubs the top 1% keep getting more of the pie while the middle class gets less.

Meg Whitman, for example, has spent 80 million dollars (as I remember) of her own money to buy the governorship so she can use her power as governor to keep her income taxes unfairly low. I think her opponent has spent about 20 million dollars of his own money to buy the governorship so he can use his power as governor to keep his income taxes unfairly low.

Arizona, our sales tax is going to 9.25percent...

and we are number FIFTY in terms of schools...

And will remain there...

And number one in terms of gun-nuts' "rights"...

And somehow the bat-crap crazy Legislature of this poor state continues to sink us further...

And will try again next year to lower the highest income tax level and corporate taxes...

And will probably succeed next year since a marginally sane Senate leader has been termed out...

I guess they're setting their eyes on Arizona becoming as much of a "free market capitalist heaven" as Somalia is...

...you'd get the consumption taxes, but never the rebates for low earners.

Is there a sales tax exception for food and clothing in your state? Is there a level that clothing must reach before it is taxable? Are textbooks exempt?

Consumption taxes favor the rich, who actually spend less of their income than the middle class or the poor. You can make them progressive -- and you can hammer in a nail with the flat of a pair of pliers, too.

Progressive income taxes are progressive by design, and consumption taxes aren't.

There's probably not a more regressive tax than consumption taxes. You can try to compensate them to make it less regressive, but ultimately it still is regressive. A more progressive tax would be on large scale fiscal transactions like stock sales and loan interest. Heck, tax bonuses.

Oh, a VAt is "wonderful, do-able" but a transaction tax on traders would mean the end of the world. puke.

Tax the mf-ing rich. That's where the surplus money is.

I'm not really in a position to afford a VAT tax, and neither are those who are worse off financially than I am. The tax would be highly regressive unless applied to luxury items only.

Obama promised that my taxes wouldn't go up one dime. I'm holding him to it.

I can see now that we'll be getting a VAT tax because it seems to be popular. Why people would agree to what amounts to an income decrease to fund an out-of-control military is beyond me. Shoot yourself in the foot.

At least it's not with the people I talk to.

but it depends on how it's sold to the people. Many people will be adamantly opposed to it. But if the right argument is made, by the right President/politicians, who knows what people will accept? If it's sold as "here's how we're going to protect Medicare and SS" or "here's how we're going to fund putting people back to work," those could be persuasive arguments with many people, again made by the right person. Also, gradual introduction of it could be another selling point -- "it's only going to be 1/2%." And then after they have acclimated people to it, they start raising it and pretty soon it's 5%. That undoubtedly would be the method of introduction.

And the alternative will be portrayed as deep cuts in SS. That will ensure people's compliance. Obama would be the perfect person to do it. He has the political skills to sell snow in Alaska, at least to his followers.

Meanwhile, they'll piss away most of it, as they're doing now, on military conquest and funneling money to their patrons. Recently, I've noticed $150 million seems to routinely fly out the door to Pakistan about every two weeks, for this or that.

Besides resorting to a regressive VAT. First, raise taxes on the wealthy and corporate, oh and plug some loopholes as well.

Better yet, END THESE GODDAMN WARS. We have spent over 100 billion per year for the last nine years on these wars, for what? Iraq is going to explode as soon as we leave, if we leave, though we did secure a number of juicy oil contracts for various corporations. Meanwhile, we're stuck in a neverending quagmire in Afghanistan, wasting lives, money and resources, for what.

End those wars, cut defense spending and gee, we could be debt free within a few years. But instead this idiotic proposal of a VAT tax keeps getting tossed around. Sorry, but it is simply another way of transferring wealth from the bottom to the top of our socio-economic ladder.

And the bulk of it percentage-wise paid for by the rich who benefit the most. WAR has been very lucrative for them!

if corporations and the super wealthy paid their fair shares, things would be vastly different. No one likes taxation, but most also realize there is a necessity in paying into a system that generally benefits the citizens.

Cuts should be made, look at how much these wars are costing us in cash, not to mention blood. The "war on drugs" is a sham, always has been. Fraud through Medicare is rampant, tests never done, procedures priced far above what they actually should cost, medications costing 400-5000% more here than anywhere else.

The list is endless at how the taxpayer gets ripped off. Those that got the huge tax breaks in the past do little more than invest some of their liquid cash, and sit on the rest. Economies are run by production and purchasing; production in this country is down because of out sourcing, and purchasing is down because jobs an wages are down.

It's a complicated mess, but I think we are starting to see a turnaround. If the GOP gets back in power...the country is headed straight to hell.

If you want a win/win tax, tell the administration to stop opposing a financial transactions and Tobin tax. That would bring in well over $100 billion per annum, and at the same time create a disincentive to unproductive (and as we have seen- destructive) speculatory trading.

This VAT crap wouldn't even be in a conversation.