http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/tully_vat.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008120207
:grouphug:
thank you president I gotta fail as bad as my father at a war with iraq.
So now instead of gm selling 8 over priced cars a year, they will have to raise there rpice 25% to cover the Vat tax? and ultimently sell no cars a year. Sounds like a good idea to me. I think ill get my passport re upped now, so I can ride this burning bitch all the way to the ground and then leave.
Before this gets stupid, everyone keep in mind that this isn’t a proposed policy. Just an article CNN wrote.
United States
In the United States, the state of Michigan used a form of VAT known as the “Single Business Tax” (SBT) as its form of general business taxation. It is the only state in the U.S. to have used a VAT. When it was adopted in 1975, it replaced seven business taxes, including a corporate income tax. On August 9, 2006, the Michigan legislature approved voter-initiated legislation to repeal the Single Business Tax. The repeal became effective January 1, 2008.[2]
Most states have sales taxes charged to the end buyer only. State sales taxes range from 0%-13% and municipalities often add an extra local sales tax.[3] In many stores, the price tags and/or advertised prices do not include the taxes; these will be added at the cash register before the customer pays. In many states, no sales tax is charged for services. This is a key difference between most sales taxes levied throughout the United States and the value added taxes in other countries.
Ex-Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has proposed a national sales tax at a rate of 30% (which would replace all federal income tax). This has generated considerable confusion as a 30% addition translates to 23% of the total purchasing price being paid as taxes.[4]. Huckabee’s FairTax proposal is pitched, in part, as a means of increasing the competitiveness of domestic goods against those of European producers whose VAT is refunded on exports
Seems like it would hurt the Domestic Car industry… I guess a VAT on purchases that are foreign… almost like a tariff would be OK in my book
+1
But it does make an awful lot of sense when you hear the spending numbers that keep being proposed with little to no talks of cuts. You can’t pay for this just by taxing the rich, which is what I’ve been saying all along.
Obama shits gold. No tax hike needed.
Everyone’s taxes will probably go up. :gotme:
“Created in 1954 by a French economist”
I actually liked Huckabee’s plan. Sure its too extreme of a change to impose in 4 year without people freaking out. But the idea of not being taxed on money you are saving sounds good to me.
I also like the Huckabee plan. A few people have mentioned it in their run for president, but are usually laughed out of the primaries. People actually like the current plan, why I have no clue.
Answer to the OP’s post title…
NOT ME!!!
Talk to anyone from the UK and they will tell you what a PITA VAT’s are on purchasing so many basic goods compared to countries with no VAT’s.
VATs are the reason I was able to make good money in the European markets when I was open.
:picard:
well, he has a point in the end of taxes on savings.
It is a given that wealth is most easily gained from earnings potential. When the gov takes your $ before you can use it for earnings, that hurts you.
So, if you payed no taxes every week and put that money in a savings account earning interest, then paid taxes in a lump sum every year you would save the % of interest you earned, minus the taxes on interest.
The fair tax would benifit you in the same way. Or am I forgetting something?
So open a second-hand market or just don’t buy anything at all.
nerds…
Let’s see, where shall I begin.
1.) You would give people incentive to not spend money. Thus giving out incentive for economy to completely tank. People would actually be given tax breaks to drive up the deficit further. Any economic policy that encourages hoarding is destined to send the economy in question for a long ride on the failboat.
2.) Poor people spend over 100% of their income. Rich people spend a very small fraction of theirs. The “fair” tax is actually the most regressive tax you could have. You would be taxing the poor at 40+% of their income, and the rich at very low single digits.
3.) It would cause smuggling, out of country purchases, and the black market to thrive.
4.) There is no way of enforcing a sales tax on cash deals. Merchants will start cutting under the table deals with people to save the 30% on everything they buy. Expect to see a lot more used cars sold private party for $100 in AS-IS condition.
shall i continue?
Your pretty much right on 1, 3, and 4… but those concerns would be easily addressed there is no way that those flaws can be worse than our current system.
As for number 2 above, huckabee directly addressed this stating it was the reason why he supported the plan…It would be much much easier to give tax breaks to the poor. By simply waving the tax on purchases such as milk, bread, diapers, or other “essentials” that current food stamps are typically used for.
When they find out their $10k nissan versa is now going to cost $13k, the 10 cents they save on milk isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference. And no matter how you look at it it would pretty much invert the progressive income brackets. Everyone roughly consumes the same amount of basic needs, food and such. Huckabee’s plan benefits no one except the Mr. Burns’s of the world, the filthy rich who don’t spend a dime.
I’m from England and grew up with the VAT. I actually found the American system a little more confusing at first because I had to start factoring in sales tax. (since VAT is added in, the price you see is the price you pay).
a lot of the concerns joe has are not true. People still buy cars in england, they still spend money, and certain things are not subject to tax. I’m not even sure joe read the whole article because rebates are given to offset what poor people pay. (yes, this is socialism)
It is true that people do try to smuggle in things like cigarettes and booze, but overall this is a very small percentage of sales.
as much as I hate the idea of any more taxes, a VAT is somewhat inevitable. A flat tax is not going to work, but is easier to explain in a political speech.
I wasn’t talking about the VAT. I was talking about the huckabee fair tax. totally different ball game.