<p>I think the Vat is a great tax…if you want to tax the poor and middle class…</p>
<p>How much should we raise with a VAT and will that not slow down the economy?</p>
<p>Can we nationalize healthcare and pay for this with a VAT? Are we going to have a VAT and an income tax?</p>
<p>Re post #171 and the Romney tax loop holes</p>
<ol>
<li>Close it
2 Close it</li>
<li><p>Proceed with caution and an eye to unintended consequences. Not only the uber wealthy, but also anyone with stocks, bonds and mutual funds is affected by this, so, much of the middle class. (remember the ATM debacle of a few years ago?) If you raise Cap Gains tax then there is a tendency to hold assets. The ‘flipping’ of assets (not at the hedge fund level but at the level of Joe and Jane who held some IBM and Apple stock and would like to sell to buy a house…not only allows for wealth creation but if restricted by a too heavy tax burden reduces the $$ floating around in our economy. </p></li>
<li><p>There is already a cap on mortgage deductions. If your mortgage is over 1M (either in one main residence or a combo of vacation and main) your schedule A deductions start phasing out. Also, Mobil homes…those huge bus things that sell for 300K+. Do you want to disallow grammy and Gramps from deducting their mobile home interest? How about those construction jobs, and the mobile home industry? Also, the truly wealthy will structure a second, third or fourth home as a ‘investment’…for example, part of a 401K/IRA can be in the form of a home/residence. So, chances are you won’t get those whom you assume to be targeted by this over simplification of the definition of mortgage interest. Also, what a jumbo mortgage buys in CA is very very very different than what one buys in Omaha.</p></li>
<li><p>Not really sure what this means.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>We had higher cap gains tax rates before…under Reagan.</p>
<p>5 means that deductions are taken at a lower tax rate and not the top rate…
For example…if I am in the top tax rate…and i deduct my mortgage interest…
I don’t save 35%… I might save 28%. My deduction is worth the same as a middle class person. </p>
<p>I am kind of happy with 1 and 2…</p>
<p>That’s over 100 billion a year…</p>
<p>I don’t think that is chump change…</p>
<p>I think the cost of the food stamp program, for example, is closer to $60 billion. Msybe it is s little more now because the economy has been weak.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sales taxes are regressive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I expect the benefits to be larger than what I put into medicare…
[quote]
</p>
<p>Isn’t that then a de factor government support program (even with interest inputed)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actuarially, folks over 50 will get LOTS of money back from SS. Indeed, the reason that the SS income cap has not been raised higher is because it is currently at the approximate tipping point. If the cap does go higher, those with higher incomes will actuarially not get back even what they pay in during their lifetimes.</p>
<p>And btw, since you will easily get back what you put in – again actuarially, plus a whole lot more, that by definition is a government support program.</p>
<p>Thus, it IS a duck.</p>
<p>P.S. don’t forget the other current insurances that your payroll taxes cover: End Stage Renal Disease, for example. If you had kidney failure at a young age, you could be receiving benefits for a really long time, including a transplant. Medicare also covers certain disabilities for those under 65. While you may have been fortunate not to need such coverage, that ‘insurance’ is provided as part of your payroll taxes. It has an actuarial value whether or not you use it. </p>
<p>SS includes Spousal benefits who may never pay in one dime. SS includes children’s-survivor benefits to those who may have never had a job.</p>
<p>While perhaps good policy, such programs are a type of social “insurance” which provide a benefit to you and your family. That social insurance has an actuarial value, which means that you have been receiving SS “benefits” from your first paycheck. </p>
<p>Add it all up: Quack.</p>
<p>
True, but an individual is fully in control of the consumption choices made. I like that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They look like the ultimate flat tax…same percentage on same thing no matter who buys it…definition of FLAT tax.</p>
<p>Bluebayou…</p>
<p>I am paying for the government support. It is not a handout. It is not free.</p>
<p>I am in my 50’s too.</p>
<p>I pay 300,000 over a 40 year period…and then I receive benefits. I have to receive benefits well over 300,000 to break even…well over</p>
<p>But I tell you what…</p>
<p>You give me 300,000 over the next 10 years…and then i will give you 301,000 over the
Following 10 years…10 years.</p>
<p>I will do that in the same percentage…any dollar amount…you want…</p>
<p>That is one of the ways Warren Buffett got incredibly wealthy.</p>
<p>Maybe…I was misreading what you wrote…your definition of government support is a little different than mine. </p>
<p>As far as the Vat…people are so stuck in their philosophies…</p>
<p>Let’s look at how The VAT works.</p>
<p>You get a guy like George Soros…maybe he makes 1 billion in a year…and he has a lot of tax breaks…so let’s assume his taxes on a
billion are 150 million…like people with similar incomes…</p>
<p>How much does George Soros really spend a year?</p>
<p>Let’s say 150 million a year…I doubt he spends that much. I doubt anybody spends that much. That is 3 million a week. A week.</p>
<p>And let’s say we have a VAT instead of an income tax…a VAT of 33 1/3 percent.
I think that would be the second highest VAT in the world…Most countries have a VAT and an income tax…We wouldn’t…because. We hate income taxes.</p>
<p>So George Soros would pay a VAT of 50 million dollars.
Why would we tax George Soros 50 million instead of 150 million dollars?</p>
<p>Why would we give George Soros a 100 million dollar tax cut?</p>
<p>And to take it one more step…</p>
<p>Let’s take an elderly couple that makes 15,000 a year.</p>
<p>That couple probably pays zero in income taxes.</p>
<p>Under a Vat…this couple probably that makes 15,000 a year…if they spend 3,000 a year thst would be Vat taxable…would have to pay 1,000.</p>
<p>This couple is going to get an infinity percentage tax increase…for those that love percentages.</p>
<p>This couple is going to have to pay 1,000 more in taxes.</p>
<p>So…we have Soros…who gets a 100 million dollar tax cut…and this elderly couple…gets a 1,000 tax increase.</p>
<p>This is what some of you posters want? Really? I can’t believe this…
I think zoosermom…you are just great…but really?</p>
<p>This example I used…this is going to affect millions of people…both the poor and the wealthiest. Another tax break for George Soros…he already has so many…</p>
<p>
Yes, really.
Perhaps the tax could begin at a certain income level, I would be fine with that. Or exclude food, medication, heating oil.</p>
<p>I do think everyone except the poorest or most disabled should contribute. If that means sacrifice, so be it. I’ve been poor, really poor, so I can relate. But being poor doesn’t mean you shouldn’t contribute at least something.</p>
<p>We could also discuss the percentage of that tax rate, I think your 30% rate is much too high dstark. </p>
<p>But you know what? What we are doing now isn’t working for anyone. It’s time to at least respectfully discuss other options. The implication that I want to punish impoverished elderly people is a little out there.</p>
<p>33 percent is probably low…if there isn’t an income or cap gains tax…</p>
<p>Zoosermom…you are great…but I don’t want you anywhere near the power to make policy… :)</p>
<p>I think switching to a VAT is barbaric.</p>
<p>I think switching from something that doesn’t work…and I agree our tax system doesn’t work…</p>
<p>To something worse…much worse…is not really constructive.</p>
<p>And it doesn’t matter if a person wants to impoverish…the poor and the elderly…if the policy hurts the poor and the elderly…the policy hurts the poor and the elderly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, I don’t like that guy at all…but…we have a curious mentality that not taking something in the first place (in this case 100 M) is somehow a ‘give back’. So, last year I took 100lb from your garden of tomato’s , this year I’m only taking 50lb…so really, this year I ‘gave’ you and extra 50lb??? That is our ingrained mentality.</p>
<p>George Soros makes zero without government support of the markets…without rules and regulations…</p>
<p>He makes ZERO.</p>
<p>Just like me.</p>
<p>Although, What I make is a lot closer to zero than what Soros makes. :)</p>
<p>
I would say the same about you!</p>
<p>But, again, it’s a conversation. Which is what I think is necessary and missing. To say “How about this?” and then have the other side say with respect and courtesy “I don’t think this would work, but how about this?” and so forth. The status quo just does not work and anyone who thinks we aren’t all going to have to sacrifice is nuts.</p>
<p>I like the idea of making sure all but a very small group (e.g. unable to work or very poor) contribute something. We all benefit from the expenditures; most of us should pay for some share of it.
I fear that marginal tax rates at the top end are high enough to disincent work. As a second income in my home, my after tax pay is surprisingly small. If not for fear of no health insurance should my hubby lose his job or the real possibility of never seeing a penny of social security, I would chose not to work only becuase of our marginal high level of taxation. Contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of comfortable and wealthy people paying a lot in taxes! There needs to be a financial reward to hard work; it’s human nature to work harder if one can keep it.</p>
<p>Ok…I know the VAT doesn’t work as a substitute for the income tax. ;)</p>
<p>I think taxing the wealthy at a 90 percent rate doesn’t work either.</p>
<p>George Soros can only buy so much stuff. Economically…to give him an additional 100 million is not as effective as giving 100,000 people 1,000.</p>
<p>I don’t make this stuff up. ;)</p>
<p>Look, you leave George Soros alone.</p>
<p>He pays his (considerable) legal bills and that’s all you need to know.</p>
<p>[Raise</a> Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>“Thats why I can say with confidence that rich people dont create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.”</p>
<p>Also a TED Talk.</p>
<p>“An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.”</p>
<p>Parent</p>
<p>I agree with your statement. Real income for the middle class is suppressed. Many have actually lost buying power. Middle class is shrinking too. The enconomy will not improve until we see better wages.</p>
<p>"Look, you leave George Soros alone.</p>
<p>He pays his (considerable) legal bills and that’s all you need to know."</p>
<p>:)</p>