VAT is WORST idea EVER; it puts ALL of the BURDEN of TAXATION on the poor & middle class!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44483875

It is what has put Europe into THEIR DIRE STRAITS!

We need to RETURN to the 20 years of PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAXES of the UBER-RICH that made this country the STRONGEST, MOST BENEVOLENT NATION IN THIS WORLD EVER!

http://supratruth.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/17/5864039-a-proposal-for-real-tax-reform

Only rich people deserve money.

like Boortz and Herman Cain, so that should give most people a clue as to what their intentions are.

Rahm Emanuel is a big supporter and his brother Ezekial was hired by Orszag to advise the White House on its potential implementation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909.html

This is what they want and if they win a second term, I have no doubt they will vigorously pursue it.

Argentina. And it's really high, too. Guess what? It sucks. And the poor obviously pay a much, much higher percentage than the rich.

It took a military dictatorship to get a VAT installed here. And they still haven't gotten rid of it.

You pays X% of your declared income with no breaks, loopholes, or shelters.
The few who own 75% of the wealth in america pay 75% of the total tax revenue.
The masses who own 25% of the wealth in america pay 25% of the total tax revenue.
Everyone is equal. The only exceptions are incomes under the poverty limit.

I feel this would be easier to sell to the elite (rather than a more progressive system) and to the masses (rather than a VAT).

You know we are going backward when Democrats oppose progressive taxation.

i only stated that I support the flat tax because:
a) The wealthy end up paying the majority of tax revenue (as it should be)
b) The idea of equality is always easier to promote/sell.

I believe a flat tax with truly no loopholes would result in fewer taxes for common americans across the board. Corporations and the wealthy have the means to hide almost all of their tax burden in our current system - leaving working class americans to shoulder the load. Even with lowering the rich/corporate advertised rate of taxation... they would end up owing more taxes overall without having tax loopholes and sheltering taxable income.

That does not mean I oppose enacting a more progressive taxation... I just think it would be easier to sell the idea of a flat tax. No matter what kind of idea or change anyone wants... truly ideal/absolutist changes are hard to incorporate in reality simply due to politics and opposition. The best plan in the world does no good if it isn't adopted. Technical, economical, and political solutions not only need t offer improvement - but they need to be "marketable". I think a Flat Tax is something that would effect significant change for lower/middle class americans that might receive enough support to actually pass.

To promote a flat tax IS to oppose progressive taxation.

A flat tax disproportionately impacts 90% of the people. Why would a progressive tax be a hard sell politically when it benefits 90% of the people? That makes no sense.

While progress may be difficult, and while we may have to settle for less than ideal programs, why should we therefore advocate less than what is needed? That makes no sense. We may not get all that we ask for, but we most certainly will not get it if we don't ask for it. Your call for accepting the political reality is actually part of what is causing that reality.

"Why would a progressive tax be a hard sell politically when it benefits 90% of the people?"

Because the other 10% (the 10% that holds 95% of the wealth) is the group that more or less writes the tax codes. The own the lobbyist, they own the policians, and they are the ones that ensure loopholes are in place that only benefit themselves. When it comes to taxatino and legislation... the wolves are guarding the henhouse. And they are not going to "give up something for nothing".

So I support giving them a lower advertised tax rate... and taking away tax shelters and loopholes in return.
This means the flat rate has the potential to be lower than the current rates for the middle and lower class...

You are trying to sell a right wing idea by presenting it as though it were progressive.

the MASSES; We THE MASSES have the NUMBERS if we would only exercise that POWER at the Polls!

A Flat Tax will always harm the poor the most. Let's say it is 10%. That is nothing to someone making millions, but it really hurts someone making 30,000 a year. Don't fall for the libertarian BS about fairness, they don't get to talk about fairness while the top 2% owns most of the wealth.

If there were no tax shelters or loopholes, then a flat tax rate could effectively be *lower* than what it is now for lower and middle class americans.

Think about corporations like GE who make billions and end up paying like 0.01% of that in taxes despite what their tax bracket says they should pay. Hell, corporations and multi-millionaires probably spend more on accounting and dodging taxes than what they end up paying to Uncle Sam. How many hard working americans currently paying 10-25% in a progressive system does it take to make up the lost tax revenue dodged by the top 2%? The weathiest 2% of this nation basically write the laws... and they have them written in their own favor. As long as the tax code allows for the wealthiest 2% to pay a smaller percentage than the average american then no system (Flat, Progressive, VAT, etc...) will solve our budget problems.

Closing loopholes and promoting a flat tax are two different issues.

If the former, then you haven't closed any breaks, loopholes or shelters.

If the latter, then you've just created a X% instant inflation in one year.

You're conflating wealth with income. Do you want a wealth tax or an income tax?

The flat tax/"fair" tax/VAT tax are the stupidest ideas to be found in the bottom drawer of the file cabinet entitled "really bad ideas" in the basement of the Ministry of Idiocy.

Yeah, you don't like that deal, do you?

That is, the rate on a yacht would be much higher than that on a can of beans. Is it not being implemented as designed?

Sure you could impose a luxury tax on certain items to make the tax code more progressive I suppose - but that doesn't have anything to do with VAT.

Not exactly a solid recipe for growth. I always thought it was a tax only on "value added", thus, a few pennies on the can of beans, but several thousand on the yacht (which sells for much more than the wood, cloth, metal, and labor that go into it). COuld such a scheme work in the real world?

It's in his better interest to promote a tax system in which the lower incomes would carry a larger portion of the burden. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax#Tax_rates

Including 19 or the top 20 countries in the UN's Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index - We can all guess which one is the exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#Inequality-adjusted_HDI

Norway 0.876 (steady)
Australia 0.864 (steady)
Sweden 0.824 (increase 6)
Netherlands 0.818 (increase 3)
Germany 0.814 (increase 5)
Switzerland 0.813 (increase 7)
Ireland 0.813 (decrease 2)
Canada 0.812 (steady)
Iceland 0.811 (increase 8)
Denmark 0.810 (increase 9)
Finland 0.806 (increase 5)
United States 0.799 (decrease 8)
Belgium 0.794 (increase 5)
France 0.792 (steady)
Czech Republic 0.790 (increase 13)
Austria 0.787 (increase 9)
Spain 0.779 (increase 3)
Luxembourg 0.775 (increase 6)
Slovenia 0.771 (increase 10)
Greece 0.768 (increase 2)

Given the much more equitable distribution of income in these countries, perhaps it is understandable that citizens would accept a regressive tax when the proceeds are used to prevent extremes of poverty and wealth from occurring as they do in the US. (Even Bolivia and Venezuela have VAT's.)

One really can't justify such a regressive tax in a country like the US where the income inequality is so terrible and the proceeds of any such tax would undoubtedly not go to make this a fairer society.

from their UNfair tax systems not generating enough government revenue --- Greece & Ireland.

Peek at our history in Latin America for that last few dozen decades.

But the owners of this country have fattened themselves on the results of our NON-benevolence to other countries and now more or less act like they don't need the rest of this country, going forward. They are just picking the flesh from our bones.

We can at least TRY.