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

[Zombie_Fish]

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.

Ah, but should the rich be more privaleged for having more than others? The play "An Inspector Calls" looks into this idea and says that the answer is socialism, as in that everyone is treated equally, no privaleges or anything like that. But do people with more important jobs deserve better in turn?

Anyway, I doubt they will add VAT in America. It's just too problematic to set up on a scale of that of America.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I don't understand, I thought American's had VAT already? I haven't been there in under a decade, but I could have sworn you have.

 

[internutt]

I don't understand, I thought American's had VAT already? I haven't been there in under a decade, but I could have sworn you have.

America add VAT after a purchase I believe. They'll advertise a game as 60 dollars before VAT. When in the UK VAT is applied to the RRP and not added later.

I'm more than likely wrong though. I haven't lived in the US for 10 years.

 

[neolithic]

I don't understand, I thought American's had VAT already? I haven't been there in under a decade, but I could have sworn you have.

America add VAT after a purchase I believe. They'll advertise a game as 60 dollars before VAT. When in the UK VAT is applied to the RRP and not added later.

I'm more than likely wrong though. I haven't lived in the US for 10 years.

We don't have VAT in the form that is being discussed. Sales tax is not done on a national scale. It's determined on a state/county/city level. This is a straight % tax on top of all other allready in place taxes that goes straight to the feredal government. And I've heard whispers of numbers as high as 20-25% so....that 60 dollar game, just became 75 dollars....plus all applicable state/local sales taxes....so...80+ bucks...

Obviously, it's all mainly hearsay, including what I just said. But that's the basic idea of it. It's come up a few times in our history, but never got very far. However, from all I've read, if it had a chance to get passed, our current government would be the most able to pass it.

In addition, from what little there is to go on, this would apply to EVERYTHING, and I mean... EVERYTHING, food, services, goods, and it would apply to EVERY STEP OF PRODUCTION.

Scary, eh?

anywho, nobody go nuts over this, it's all speculation based on old ideas that were brought to the table on the subject, and officially no one is talking about it yet. Just those after hour outta the congress hall talks.

 

[Merteg]

The rich aren't being punished for "being successful." They're being punished because they RULE the world and only get richer while the poor only poorer.

They can control everything PURELY because they have money, not because we elected them or because they have any merits in their personality.

That's why they should be taxed.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I don't understand, I thought American's had VAT already? I haven't been there in under a decade, but I could have sworn you have.

America add VAT after a purchase I believe. They'll advertise a game as 60 dollars before VAT. When in the UK VAT is applied to the RRP and not added later.

I'm more than likely wrong though. I haven't lived in the US for 10 years.

That's exactly how it was when I visited. I'd see something on a menu or in a shop and think 'yeah I've got enough for that!' then they add VAT and my young self is confused and angered.

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

Us Britons don't have VAT any more.

*Extremely smug smile.*

 

[Ancientgamer]

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.

Are you aware of a thing called tax brackets? As is, the amount you have to pay increases near exponentially the richer you get. This is already happening, it's been happening for a very long time, even under bush. Don't pay taxes? What are you on? By the time you start talking in millions, you're already paying almost half your income to the government. Now you want to punish them even more, just for being successful? What are you trying to get from wanting to hurt them so badly, is this just some kind of jealousy thing? "I don't have this much, so nobody should have this much ;_; "

Boo-freaking-hoo.

 

[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.

Are you aware of a thing called tax brackets? As is, the amount you have to pay increases near exponentially the richer you get. This is already happening, it's been happening for a very long time, even under bush. Don't pay taxes? What are you on? By the time you start talking in millions, you're already paying almost half your income to the government. Now you want to punish them even more, just for being successful? What are you trying to get from wanting to hurt them so badly, is this just some kind of jealousy thing? "I don't have this much, so nobody should have this much ;_; "

Boo-freaking-hoo.

Well, we're supposed to have a bracket system, but the fact is that we don't. The people who are supposed to be paying more than anyone else, find loopholes to get out of paying. Take for instance Boone Pickens. Some of you may have seen his Pickens Plan commericals, some of you may have seen him on Real Time with Bill Maher getting interviewed, the point is, he's a very very rich man. Mr. Pickens is a figure who is particularly relevant to my life, because I live in Stillwater Oklahoma, and attend Oklahoma State University. OSU loves Boone Pickens so much that we named our football stadium after him because of a massive donation he gave us, here's the catch though, under the tables, we gave it all right back. People like Pickens find other rich people (like the president of OSU) who are willing to work with them, hand off massive sums of money in the form of a donation, making it tax exempt, and then find loopholes in the system to get it back. This is a pretty standard practice. And, even forgetting the brackets and tax evasion, consider that the corporations that make more money than any of these rich pricks, have the lowest tax rates of all. So, before you buy the bullshit that these rich assholes are feeding you, maybe you should realize it for what it is, these people who already have more than anyone could ever need, still don't feel like they have enough.

 

[mark0217]

Well, we're supposed to have a bracket system, but the fact is that we don't. The people who are supposed to be paying more than anyone else, find loopholes to get out of paying. So, before you buy the bullshit that these rich assholes are feeding you, maybe you should realize it for what it is, these people who already have more than anyone could ever need, still don't feel like they have enough.

This about sums up what I was gonna type.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

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.

QQ more. If you had the chance to become one of those guys, you would take it. You wanna know why? Those guys don't give a shit what you think because they're RICH!

 

[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?

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.

I don't think relying on bank savings is very effective, though. Could you explain how it could be effectively used?

Also, I thought the market crash happened because of the housing crash, which was caused by people who couldn't pay their bills? Some may have been tricked into it, but they still defaulted, right?

Sorry if that information about the cause of the market rash is not correct. I think it is, but I could have been fooled.

 

[Cerebreus]

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.

Ah, but should the rich be more privaleged for having more than others? The play "An Inspector Calls" looks into this idea and says that the answer is socialism, as in that everyone is treated equally, no privaleges or anything like that. But do people with more important jobs deserve better in turn?

Anyway, I doubt they will add VAT in America. It's just too problematic to set up on a scale of that of America.

...But no freedom or choice, right?

I don't like how much of a difference there is between rich and poor, but I think socialism discourages individuality to an extent. Not only that, but the U.S. was founded on freedom and choice. Those may have been forsaken at certain points in history, but I do value them.

People should be rewarded for their success. I don't think it should be to the extremes that exist, but class warfare is not a good solution for fixing the discrepancy.


I'm just worried socialism would be taken to such an extreme as to be oppresive.

 

[Gamer137]

I have no problem with the rich keeping what they worked for. However, I don't appreciate it when they try to avoid taxes or anything similar. The government needs to establish a group that focus purley on investigating this stuff. In addition, they need to fix there own damn budget problems before forcing us to pay more. How much will the public have to pay for government bailouts of companies that are corrupt?

 

[Sewblon]

We have roughly 25 times as much dept as we have money, so we should be cutting taxes and cutting spending, so we can pay it off eventually.

 

[Pendragon9]

If the rich don't pay their taxes, take the money by force. That's all I'm gonna say. They should not be allowed to use loopholes to keep their money. They're gonna pay like all of us. I despise people like that.

And if they don't, throw them off a cliff and hand out the dollar bills ya'll.

 

[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.

I don't think relying on bank savings is very effective, though. Could you explain how it could be effectively used?

Also, I thought the market crash happened because of the housing crash, which was caused by people who couldn't pay their bills? Some may have been tricked into it, but they still defaulted, right?

Sorry if that information about the cause of the market rash is not correct. I think it is, but I could have been fooled.

Gah. This will tax may patience.

Bank savings are not simply kept in a bank. Your savings are taken by the bank, and loaned out to people who want loans - businesses usually, but in more recent years also private individuals. This is the famous save vs. spend debate in economics. Spending now stimulates demand, in that it provides immeditae income for suppliers. Saving provides supply, by providing a source of credit so suppliers (businessess) can expand their business when the market expands.

Stock-Trading, however, does neither. It does not stimulate demand (save for stocks, which have no intrinsic value) or supply (for the money cannot be taken and loaned out). In essence, money in the stock market is literal dead weight - doing fuck all.

And you are quite correct about the housing crash. In this case, the market crash was an effect, and not a cause of the original crash. But prior to this, most recessions have been caused, in part, by overinvestment in the stock market.

 

[Trace2010]

Why don't we just TAX EVERYONE in this country 10% of their income and abolish the tax codes entirely?

JUST A NOTE: That's what any kind of consumption tax is anyway.

It doesn't matter how much you tax the rich- if not everyone is paying taxes the system will eventually fail.

 

[Trace2010]

We have roughly 25 times as much dept as we have money, so we should be cutting taxes and spending, so we can pay it off eventually.

A government cannot cut taxes and spend money at the same time, that's how you get into debt in the first place.