Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

For what it worth…

…which likely ain’t all that much, Americans aren’t very high on the idea of a VAT tax:

More than two thirds of Americans oppose the imposition of a Value-Added Tax, according to a new poll released Tuesday which also shows that voters, by a two-to-one margin, think the government needs to rein in its rate of spending.

“Voters think a VAT is a bad idea by 67 to 21 percent,” says the polling memo written by veteran Republican strategist Ed Gillespie, for the group Resurgent Republic.

The poll of 1,000 likely voters found that even among Democrats, 53 percent think a VAT is a bad idea, versus 31 percent who think it’s a good one. Among Independents, 67 were opposed and 19 were in favor, while 82 percent of Republicans opposed the European-style consumption tax, with 12 percent in favor.

Public discussion of a VAT has increased in recent weeks as President Obama’s fiscal commission has held its first meeting and the debate over how to fix the nation’s surging deficit and debt has begun to make its way out of the think tanks and into the political arena.

But those who might be in favor of a VAT are by no means embracing it wholeheartedly. Obama adviser Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve Chairman under President Carter and President Reagan, has more than once said a VAT should be considered, even while acknowledging the political difficulties involved in pursuing it.

But the White House has denied the idea is even being considered.

Yet a recommendation of a VAT by the fiscal commission, which will issue a report after this fall’s midterm elections, could give the White House the political cover it would want to begin discussing such a measure.

And members of the commission have already said that higher taxes are inevitably going to be part of the solution they propose.

[my emphases]

Yeah. Whatever. Keep smoking that hate pipe, crackers — you and your biased, unscientific hatey polls — until you come to grips with having a black President. Who won. Deal.

Racists.

0 Replies to “For what it worth…”

  1. bh says:

    I think I see a pattern developing here.

  2. Spiny Norman says:

    And members of the commission have already said that higher taxes are inevitably going to be part of the solution they propose.

    If ANY reductions in Federal spending are recommended, it will come out of Defense, and nowhere else.

  3. JD says:

    The VAT will be proposed the day after the November elections.

  4. Spiny Norman says:

    Although a VAT is an open invitation for corruption, cronyism and fraud (as it is in Europe), it might be worth considering only if they eliminated Income Tax altogether.

    IIRC, that was the basic idea behind the “Fair Tax” idea.

  5. Spiny Norman says:

    Oh, apologies from the Department of Redundancy Department…

  6. The Monster says:

    Although a VAT is an open invitation for corruption, cronyism and fraud (as it is in Europe), it might be worth considering only if they eliminated Income Tax altogether.

    IIRC, that was the basic idea behind the “Fair Tax” idea.

    Not quite. A VAT is collected at every level in the production/distribution chain, with an offsetting credit for the tax paid to the previous level, which conceals the cumulative effect. The FairTax is collected only at the point of purchase by the end consumer, and the amount of the tax is clearly shown on the cash register receipt so that the buyer knows exactly what he’s paying.

  7. The Monster says:

    higher taxes are inevitably going to be part of the solution they propose.

    No. Higher tax rates may be, but that doesn’t mean that tax revenues will be higher. If we’ve passed the point of maximum tax collection, the higher rates will actually reduce revenues. And when people ask Barky about that, he insists he’ll raise rates “to be fair” even knowing it will reduce revenues.

  8. Spiny Norman says:

    And when people ask Barky about that, he insists he’ll raise rates “to be fair” even knowing it will reduce revenues.

    Taxes are for Fairness, not revenue.

  9. Obstreperous Racist who also happens to be an infidel says:

    It ain’t easy being white clad…

  10. mojo says:

    After the mid-terms, I think they’ll “reconsider” their recommendation.

  11. Matt says:

    31% thinks its a good idea. Majority rules. Obama won. Shut up.

  12. Matt says:

    The thing that keeps me going, day in and day out, is that Obama promised nobody making under 250k would see their taxes increase. As someone who makes considerably less, I am very happy Barrak, as a “good man”, will not break promises to the American people.

  13. Merovign says:

    No, there are no benefits to a VAT tax at all, unless by “benefit” you mean “taking a wrecking ball to the economy.”

    The highest possible compliance cost, the taxes are regressive, they are a DIRECT drag on EVERY level of production and sales, and they will NEVER impose ONLY an VAT tax, it will always be joined up with whichever the second-worst option is. Actually, carbon taxes may be worse, since they area drag on the cycle of life itself.

    VAT taxes are, in fact, SO bad that I have to assume mental illness or ill-intent on the part of those who advocate them. That European economists are idiots is not exactly a news flash.

  14. sdferr says:

    “…European economists are idiots…”

    Too broad a brush maybe Merovign? Vaclav Klaus, for instance, is an economist and a European, but hardly an idiot.

  15. Merovign says:

    An imprecise brush. I could have expanded to eliminate certain schools, or include them for that matter, or stated quite what I meant by “European economist.”

    Imprecision happens when you tack something on as an afterthought, my fault. Bastiat was hardly an idiot either, especially in context.

    For slightly better precision, I could have said economists that support the European model, or European State Economists, or something like that.

  16. sdferr says:

    I’m cool with that. And just ‘tween us, let’s keep A. Smith, Scot, a non-European as long as we can get away with it.

  17. geoffb says:

    he insists he’ll raise rates “to be fair” even knowing it will reduce revenues.

    On the Left taxes are not primarily to raise revenue, though that is a consideration. Their main purpose is to control people.

    The totality of the private sector both on an individual level and on the level of association with others are to be made subservient and to be supplicants to the State.

    Low tax rates encourage people to simply pay them to keep the State happy and out of their business. High tax rates encourage people to go to the State and line up to beg for an exemption. That causes both power and “bribes” to flow to those in a position to grant the favors.

    What’s not to like?

    Vee
    Are
    Toast

  18. cranky-d says:

    I for one welcome our black market overlords.

  19. LTC John says:

    geoffb,

    Quite so. I should be in a terrific position to thrive in the uber-tax economy – I learned “under the table” from some of the best – Afghans and Iraqis…

  20. geoffb says:

    Back in the late 70’s I had a class in Business Admin. There instructor had a name for all the periodic tax law bills that went through Congress. I’ll paraphrase and update it.

    The laws were/are; ” The Lawyer’s, Accountant’s and Lobbyist’s Full Employment, Stimulus and General Relief Act of (year XXXX). A VAT promises to be that on steroids.

  21. geoffb says:

    More coffee, “The” not “There”.

  22. JD says:

    It is no surprise that you can see that, since you apparently see unicorns and pixie dust too.

  23. geoffb says:

    ?

  24. happyfeet says:

    the bdam comments were deleted

  25. JD says:

    geoffb – There used to be some meya/RD/bdam/etal idiocy there. Someone cleaned up the shit off the sidewalk.

  26. geoffb says:

    Good, wouldn’t want the place to start looking/smelling like the sidewalks of ‘Frisco.