NEWSFLASH –
RAISING TAXES DOES NOT BALANCE THE BUDGET. IT JUST GIVES THE LEFTISTS MORE OF OUR DOLLARS TO SPEND ENLARGING GOVERNMENT AND SLOWS DOWN THE ECONOMY SO THERE ARE LESS TAXES PAID.
THE VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT) IS THE MOST INSIDIOUS OF ALL TAXES (EXCEPT INFLATION) BECAUSE IT IS HIDDEN IN THE COST OF WHAT YOU BUY. IT IS A EUROPEAN STYLE TAX THAT IS ADDED AT EACH STAGE OF PRODUCTION ON THE “VALUE ADDED”. IT CAN BE INCREASED INCREMENTALLY AND THE CONSUMER BLAMES THE BUSINESSES THAT PRODUCE AND SELL THE GOODS RATHER THAN GOVERNMENT POLICY.
Ellen
Volcker on the VAT
The middle class is where the money is.
Kudos for candor to Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve Chairman and current White House economic adviser, for admitting what other Democrats also know but don't want to admit until after the November election: The political class is preparing to pass a European-style value-added tax.
Answering a question at the New York Historical Society on Tuesday, Mr. Volcker said that a VAT—a consumption tax levied along stages of production—"was not as toxic an idea" as it has been, and that both a VAT and some kind of tax on energy need to be on the table. "If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes," he said.
We've long predicted that this would be the White House fiscal strategy, and its new deficit commission is bound to propose something along these lines. In Europe, a VAT rate that reaches 20% in some countries applies to countless products and services, so the middle class would be hit especially hard.
Though Mr. Volcker didn't say this, he is acknowledging that taxes on the rich can't begin to finance the levels of new spending that the current government has unleashed. Even the expiration of the Bush tax rates next January and the new taxes in the health-care bill won't be enough.
In recent decades, the current tax code has yielded revenue on average of 18.5% or so of GDP, whether tax rates go up or down. The wealthy adjust their behavior or shield more income via loopholes, so income-tax increases never gain as much revenue as politicians claim. With spending as a share of GDP now at 25%, Democrats have to soak the middle class because that's where the real money is.
Look for media Democrats to begin explaining why a VAT is essential to U.S. well-being, even as they fail to recall Mr. Obama's 2008 pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. We told you that the U.S. can't have a European welfare state without European tax rates, and so France, here we come.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
13 comments:
The only way out of the fiscal mess we are in is to raise taxes AND cut spending. The pols. don't have the balls to admit that we can't afford to take care of retirment/healthcare for the old and support dummies having kids that they can't afford to cover. And too many Americans want these programs but don't want to pony up the taxes to support them.
What does "european style tax," mean?
9:33
You just don't get it.
Raise taxes and the economy slows even more and tax REVENUES go down.
The only way out of this mess is to DRASTICALY cut spending and REDUCE taxes.
First way I would reduce spending, I would ELIMINATE at least half of teh government jobs and regulations.
Take the chains off of private enterprize!
First response is ridiculous... because there are much fewer people supporting the senior citizens...
Social Security was NEVER meant to be sole-source of income.. save even a little through the years and then retire
People who rely solely on Social Security are and will be foolish and plain selfish
You can only tax so much.. incentive to work and start business drops like a rock...
I own small business.. if you tax me to death.. I will just lay off more workers and work less... not worth it---
My business isn't there to support my workers and the Entitlement society the US has become.. it's to support ME!!
More unemployment etc.. will ensue
9:57, the numbers do not support your statement. Bush's tax cuts did not pay for themselves. And a large portion of the deficit increases expected under Obama are due to TAX CUTS, not increased spending. There was a great right up on this a few months back. Not surprisingly I never saw it posted on any of the conservative-oriented blogs I follow.
10:05, I think we see eye to eye more than you think. I would love to have low taxes, but folks need to realize that we are going to have to make some serious cuts in spending. The major drags on the deficit are the 3 major entitlement programs. Unfortunately people let the pols. fool them into believing it's the lady on foodstamps or in public housing that is draining the budget. And people should realize that if you want to keep the #1 military in the world, it's gonna cost ya buddy.
I was just thinking about everything I buy that has increased in price because of taxation. Everything from eggs and milk to clothes and vehicles. What kills me is the government says there is no cost of living increase. Really? That's odd because I know 7 years ago I rented a place for $900 a month now that very same rental property goes for $1300 a month.
I could go to the grocery store just 2 years ago once a week, spend $100 and my family of 4 could eat 3 healthy meals a day for a full week. Now I go grocery shopping once every two weeks and spend $200-$250 to get us thru lunches on the weekends, dinner every night, and maybe a weeks worth of snacks for the two kids.
I paid around $25 every 3 months for my W&S now I am paying $210, for poor quality water that I don't even trust to drink! Which adds to the expenses at the grocery store since I have to buy bottled water.
I could afford to fill up the gas tank in both my vehicle and my husbands for about $65 a week. Now it costs over $50 just to fill his, I have cut way back on my traveling so now my ability to put gas in my tank dictates where I can go in between pay checks.
I also find myself having to pick and chose which bills to pay since the electric bill is now over half of what my mortgage payment is. I recall getting car insurance based on my driving record, not on my credit score. I have been driving for 13 years, never had an accident never had a ticket and my husband is a truck driver with a spotless record yet every renewal our insurance creeps a little higher.
I remember a time I could afford to take my children out to eat, bowling, or to a movie. The last time they attended a movie it was a free summer flick at Center of Salisbury theater. The last paid movie was "Cars".
Just 4 or maybe 5 years ago I could walk into a store and see a variety of jeans I could buy for less than $15 now I have to wait until those jeans are on final clearance and hope like hell they have a pair..any pair.. left in my size to get a pair at that price.
I used to be able to buy shoes for my children for $15-$30, now I cannot touch a pair of shoes constructed well enough to withstand the wear and tear of little ones for less than $40 unless they are on clearance.
I am not saying the whole world is out to get us, I think the government needs to conduct an experiment. I want to see if they can live for 3 months on what us every day blue collar workers are making. We may not be high class or drive a Mercedes but damn it we work. We work hard to provide for our children. We educate our kids and teach them the importance of caring about others. We don't sit in the welfare office every month with applications on our laps, even though we would qualify if we applied. We don't do that because we are trying to make it on our own. I don't want to live off any one or anything other than our own hard work and dedication. The sad part is people just like us go to work every day, raise our children up right, and do everything in our power to make life enjoyable and affordable but we always get over looked. How is that right? So I wasn't born with a talent to make millions. So I have enough pride to not beg someone else to bare my burdens. Why can't all of us in this class be appreciated because we are what makes this country operate. The government needs to see if they keep making us, and those like us, feel like we will never be able to climb out of the hole and continue to step on our foreheads as we try, we will at some point give up. Then what happens? What happens when we have had enough and stop trying so hard to just live?
The government is too big.
They collected baby boomers money by force including social security and medicare - and then they STOLE THE MONEY. Now they want us to go along with reducing their payments. This is criminal.
Don't borrow money you can't pay back! Don't borrow money from a Trust Fund period!
They stole our money. They are criminals.
10:16
You statement is just plain factually wrong!
Bush's tax cut created an INCREASE in tax revenues to the treasury. How can you say that the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves? You sound like the money belongs to the government and the tax payers are just freeloading.
The MAIN and CENTRAL cause of our economic woes are TOO much government spending, and TOO much government intrusion into private enterprise that creates an atmospere of fear that is paralysing growth.
10:47 not sure what reports you've read, but the objective reporting on the issue that I have seen showed that while tax revenue increased, this did not offset the cost of lowering the tax brackets from their original levels. Therefore the tax cut did not pay for itself.
But look, I'm not here advocating high taxes. My point is simple; basic math and economics dictate that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. And pols from both parties are responsible for our huge debt. But citizens need to stop falling for the bs that the pols put out there. While they divide us with fear tactics and misinformation, they are able to maintain power and do as they will. Vote for commonsense, leadership, and objective analysis.
12:50
Read what you are writing!
The amount of tax collected increased because the brackets were lowered. But you are saying it didn't cover the costs.
What kind of Pelosi math are you using?
THE AMOUNT COLLECTED WENT UP!
Both parties are responsible true. But the Dumbocrats have spent more in this first year of Osama than Bush did in 8 years, all while destrying the economy to the point that tax revenues have drastcally dropped. I'd say the Dumbocrats are way more culpable than the Republicans.
12:50pm you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, if tax revenues increased then the tax cuts made more money because people reported more of their income. When you have higher taxes, people tend to report less income thru deductions, loopholes, etc, these same people also have less out of pocket moeny to spend and businesses lose revenues that increase the taxes collected. A tax cut could never and doesn't pay for itself because it is not revenue. In order to "pay for itself" and equal reduction in spending must be made. I don't go to work get paid and then spend too much on one dinner-going over budget- then claim that because I ordered water (which was free)that the drinks didn't pay for themselves when I can't afford to pay my rent/mortgage. Revenue is revenue, money in a paycheck or expected taxes collected will be the same. Gov't must learn to live on a budget, just like we do.
yall have a very loose grasp on math. Tax decreases pay for themselves when the increase in revenue following the cut exceeds what you would have taken in had the rates stayed the same. This did not happen in this case.
3:58, that whole "Osama wrecked the economy" BS shows how blind you are to the facts. I seem to remember the economy being on a tail spin well before the man stepped into office.
9:43am, you don't get that tax revenues would not have increased if the tax brackets had stayed the same because rich people have accountants and they would have found more loopholes in the tax code than the year before, therefore tax cuts brought in more revenue. And reread the statement you criticized, it doesn't say Obama wrecked the economy, the Democrats wrecked the economy since they have held the purse strings in Congress under Pelosi since 2007- correct me if I am wrong but Obama was in the Senate at that time and he himself was not solely culpable but he is a Democrat.
Post a Comment