Poll: Should the U.S. expect to have a Value Added Tax? EDIT 1

[Cerebreus]

Value Added Tax---A tax on the estimated market value added to a product or material at each stage of its manufacture or distribution, ultimately passed on to the consumer.
(Definition from Answer.com)

There's talk of it in Congress apparently. I haven't heard people outright supporting it, but I've heard it's not being shot down either.

Is this in the future for the U.S.?

EDIT 1: Apparently, some people are in favor of taxing the rich more. I don't like the idea myself.

I'm not rich, nor are my parents. I just think it's wrong to punish someone just because they have more than you or I do. Should I punish married couples because they are in love and together? Should those with children have their "extra" taken away and given to those who have none? Should those who have no jobs be allowed to take money from everyone who has a job, no matter the income.

Those are a bit of a stretch, but not too much, in my opinion.

 

[Leorex]

if they take away income tax, fine, im all for it n because im rich *****.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Hopefully hell no! that would add 10% on top of my 10 % sales tax and 22% in SS medicare etc, so yay a guy making 15k in college would get hit for 7k just in taxes. Ouch! How about we not spend 43% more than we take in.

 

[BaronAsh]

It's a pretty much a federal sales tax and I'm against, I think the government should just spend less.

 

[mooncalf]

Uhm, so they make up a number and tax you for it? In aid of what, exactly?
With apologies to the accountants out there, some of you are obviously very good at making up numbers...

 

[Leorex]

Uhm, so they make up a number and tax you for it? In aid of what, exactly?

as opposed to fedral income tax.

 

[mooncalf]

Uhm, so they make up a number and tax you for it? In aid of what, exactly?

as opposed to fedral income tax.

Ah, so it's instead of? Wouldn't that create a situation where the government would profit from the cost of goods and services increasing? In a climate where government is already influenced by business interests? Sounds like a win-win for pseudo-oligarchy and the top of a slippery slope for everybody else.... *shrugs* Slippery slope arguments are falacious, but it could be seen as the thin edge of the wedge.

 

[Leorex]

yah, i suppose the one good thing is that you cant avoid paying it like you can income tax

 

[Kpt._Rob]

How about instead of creating some rediculous new sales tax, we actually tax the income of the rich assholes who own the majority of the wealth. You know, the ones who've been in bed with Phil Grahm and just about everyone else in our government as well for years. The same pricks who got us into this current economic crisis because of their own greed, because even though they owned more than anyone could ever need, they still didn't feel that they had enough. Yeah, I say we tax them, and unlike Bush did, we don't let them find little loopholes to worm their ways out of it.

 

[Gruthar]

I would object to it being applied to certain things. If your income is near the poverty level, it would make the cost of living that much higher and difficult to reach. Ergo, I would object to a Value Added Tax on foodstuffs. Luxury and consumer goods like electronics and automobiles I would care little to none about. On a bit of a personal bias, I don't make a lot of money, so I wouldn't getting much extra from repealing the income tax anyway.

I guess taxes are the only issue where I tend to be socialist. While on the one hand I believe everyone should be free to be obscenely rich, I don't see why we should make it easy for people to horde vast amounts of personal wealth and not spend it. I see nothing but problems when there's a huge gap between the wealthy and the poor (see Mexico.) For that reason, I don't object to the progressive income tax. Given the choice of the two, I would stick with progressive taxation.

 

[Leorex]

i dont get it, this would be a flat tax. exactly what everyone wanted.

 

[Cerebreus]

How about instead of creating some rediculous new sales tax, we actually tax the income of the rich assholes who own the majority of the wealth. You know, the ones who've been in bed with Phil Grahm and just about everyone else in our government as well for years. The same pricks who got us into this current economic crisis because of their own greed, because even though they owned more than anyone could ever need, they still didn't feel that they had enough. Yeah, I say we tax them, and unlike Bush did, we don't let them find little loopholes to worm their ways out of it.

How would you punish them without punishing those not involved?

Also, what about those who pushed for people who couldn't afford housing to be given the loans? And those who let the housing crisis happen? After all, Barney Frank was against regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

America simply needs to spend less and tax more. Or rather, tax the super-rich more. 40% income tax is absurdity.

Oh, and there is a need for a reformed capital gains tax. A man earning money on the stock market is not producing anything for the nation, so why should he pay less tax than a farmer, who is?

 

[goatzilla8463]

Britain has VAT. Why shouldn't Americans get it?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

America has VAT as well.

 

[Cerebreus]

America simply needs to spend less and tax more. Or rather, tax the super-rich more. 40% income tax is absurdity.

Oh, and there is a need for a reformed capital gains tax. A man earning money on the stock market is not producing anything for the nation, so why should he pay less tax than a farmer, who is?

You do realize that you'd also being punishing retired teachers and others who are using the stock market for the purpose of retirement? It's their money, and they're trying to survive. Why punish them?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

America simply needs to spend less and tax more. Or rather, tax the super-rich more. 40% income tax is absurdity.

Oh, and there is a need for a reformed capital gains tax. A man earning money on the stock market is not producing anything for the nation, so why should he pay less tax than a farmer, who is?

You do realize that you'd also being punishing retired teachers and others who are using the stock market for the purpose of retirement? It's their money, and they're trying to survive. Why punish them?

Your point is valid, but this tax will simply encourage them to save their money in a more useful way to the nation - in a bank account, earning reasonable levels of interest a year, and contributing to the growth of new businesses and thusly, the economy.

You see, the plan is that by removing the tax on all savings interest, which we will pay for by increase the tax on stocks and bond earnings above the minimum base interest. Secondly, it will stabilise the economy because there won't be so much liquid capital floating around, waiting to create another market crash.

 

[scotth266]

All I have to say on the matter are three words: effective money management.

Our government lacks it, and covers it up by taxing the crap out of people.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I've always thought income tax was fairest myself, tho it does leave some gaps that would need plugging, such as people sitting on mountains of cash and living off the interest, and the like.

However , call me a communist, but I don't believe anyone needs to earn more than a million a year, so a 90% tax bracket once you hit that would be fine in my book.

Of course then you have to find a way to stop everyone rich just moving their cash to a tax exile country.

It sure ain't easy.