# Conrad get rid of him



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

No higher taxes and spend spend spend says Obama :eyeroll: I cannot believe anyone was gullible enough to vote for this guy

A VAT tax will really do us in

Heres the article

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

This Story
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Special Report: Health-Care Reform
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

*"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table." *

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."

Seeking New Revenue

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.

The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.

A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

Sales Tax Gains Momentum

Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.

Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.

"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."

Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.

Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was listening to Rush talk about the Value added tax. People who think it will only affect those nasty companies that make a profit and not them are naive beyond belief. Whatever a manufacture pays in taxes he simply adds to the cost of his product. You pay his taxes when you buy his product, but I guess 2 + 2 is just to tough for some people. :eyeroll:


----------



## specialpatrolgroup (Jan 16, 2009)

Large companies dont pay taxes, you increase their cost to do business by 2%, guess how much the cost of the goods they offer will go up. All the liberals go nuts when Bush, or McCain proposed tax relief for companies, what they dont understand it means cheaper products and services for us, and right now, that means more jobs.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

A VAT tax would only hurt the small business owners. Because the little guys out there will have to raise the cost of the goods they sell but are already getting beat by the bigger guys. So you add a 2% raise. They will get priced out of the ball park.

Here is an example. You take a store like Walmart. That 2% tax hike they may only need to raise the 1% to make up the difference or to make the same amount of profit they are right now. If that.

Then you take the small town store. THey will have to raise it 2% across the board. Even though right at this moment they are 5% higher than walmart in price. So that small town store that people shop at for convenience will be 6% higher than walmart. Now you take a grocery bill a week for a growing family of about $100 on average at walmart. Now you add 6% to that. That is roughly $312 a year the small town will have to charge this family. Now with the economic times that $312 a year means more than it did. The small guys will loose out.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Chuck Smith said:


> A VAT tax would only hurt the small business owners. Because the little guys out there will have to raise the cost of the goods they sell but are already getting beat by the bigger guys. So you add a 2% raise. They will get priced out of the ball park.
> 
> Here is an example. You take a store like Walmart. That 2% tax hike they may only need to raise the 1% to make up the difference or to make the same amount of profit they are right now. If that.
> 
> Then you take the small town store. THey will have to raise it 2% across the board. Even though right at this moment they are 5% higher than walmart in price. So that small town store that people shop at for convenience will be 6% higher than walmart. Now you take a grocery bill a week for a growing family of about $100 on average at walmart. Now you add 6% to that. That is roughly $312 a year the small town will have to charge this family. Now with the economic times that $312 a year means more than it did. The small guys will loose out.


 :beer: 
The only tax increase I could be in favor of is an increase on the luxury tax. Honestly though I am not well read on the luxury tax but if someone spends a million bucks on something an extra 2% probably wouldn't sway the purchase


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> The only tax increase I could be in favor of is an increase on the luxury tax. Honestly though I am not well read on the luxury tax but if someone spends a million bucks on something an extra 2% probably wouldn't sway the purchase


Yeah you obviously haven't studied this issue last time this was done ( Clinton) it destroyed the american yacht industry, did that hurt rich people everyone so loves to "screw"?

Nope rich people dont build yachts they just buy them so the end result was a large number of shipyard workers blue collar guys lost their jobs PERMANENTLY because the yatch business moved overseas


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bobm said:


> > The only tax increase I could be in favor of is an increase on the luxury tax. Honestly though I am not well read on the luxury tax but if someone spends a million bucks on something an extra 2% probably wouldn't sway the purchase
> 
> 
> Yeah you obviously haven't studied this issue last time this was done ( Clinton) it destroyed the american yacht industry, did that hurt rich people everyone so loves to "screw"?
> ...


Where did they get their yachts from then? I heard this did some damage to the small aircraft also. I am not even sure what the rate is on the tax.

Along with higher taxes we will also be looking at tariffs. On the bright side maybe then some of our brilliant trade agreements would be history. Some jobs might be created here. The global economy sucks, it just put our country in the front line for global headaches.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/business/falling-tax-would-lift-all-yachts.html

heres a ny times article about it


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you want our economy to flourish eliminate all capital gains taxes. Also eliminate taxes on money made in foreign countries by American based countries this would allow it to come back here whcih it will not do under our current confiscatory tax structure.

Those two things would provide enough stimulation to revive our economy and provide the capital necessary to get back to full employment,

the beige Marxist wont let it happen


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

New bumper sticker,

*"IT'S THE SPENDING STUPID"* not [/b]"WE NEED MORE TAXES"*

Tar and Feathers are looking better all the time! :beer: *


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

North Dakota for the most part has the most wonderful people in the world but they are very illinformed. They dont have a clue where Dorgan or Conrad stand on issues. We believe their well scripted sound bites but really dont know how they vote or where they stand . Our senators and rep goosestep behind Pelose,Schummer,Fienstein,and Reid.I believe that those mentioned think our reps are hayseeds. 95% of the people will never know that Conrad wants to impose a national sales tax.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Old Hunter said:


> North Dakota for the most part has the most wonderful people in the world but they are very illinformed. They dont have a clue where Dorgan or Conrad stand on issues. We believe their well scripted sound bites but really dont know how they vote or where they stand . Our senators and rep goosestep behind Pelose,Schummer,Fienstein,and Reid.I believe that those mentioned think our reps are hayseeds. 95% of the people will never know that Conrad wants to impose a national sales tax.


I agree, and it seems more and more elected officials are doing the same thing. The voters have to call them out on their position of telling the media, etc. one thing and voting the complete opposite. It's becoming an epidemic in DC and state legislatures, putting on the spin.

uke:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Bobm said:


> If you want our economy to flourish eliminate all capital gains taxes. Also eliminate taxes on money made in foreign countries by American based countries this would allow it to come back here whcih it will not do under our current confiscatory tax structure.
> 
> Those two things would provide enough stimulation to revive our economy and provide the capital necessary to get back to full employment,
> 
> the beige Marxist wont let it happen


we can't do that and significantly grow the size of government. Obama has set the wheels in motion for the biggest growth in government bureaucracy in history...we are screwed now, just like more entitlements, as soon as you start giving the poor more, there are more poor!


----------

