Comments on: Why the U.S. needs a Value Added Tax

By: Benny_Acosta

Benny_Acosta — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:43:59 +0000

If the US issues a VAT then it also needs to do away with income tax. It also needs to do away with all of it’s very poorly run programs and instead take a position of referee.

That is to say that rather than actually running programs like education and medical programs, and housing programs etc.. It needs to institute a financial social safety net which distributes assistance payments to the citizenry. It would be much like continuously receiving stimulus payments. They wouldn’t amount to very much for each household, but it would serve to smooth things over during difficult times.

Then the government simply needs to uphold standards of ethical business practices, and the rule of law. And in all law it is the citizen that must come first. No more special interest groups. EVERYONE has the same rights. Gay, straight, man, or woman, it doesn’t matter. All citizens have the same rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

On the surface this may seem like it would be very expensive. But in actuality it would cost much less than what the government currently pays for corporate welfare and the administration of its entitlement programs. With what our war is costing us alone this plan could be easily carried out for decades.

The advantage of putting money directly into the hands of the citizenry is that they will be encouraged to consume, pay bills, choose their own medical care, schools, etc.

Our money is backed by faith alone. If one is going to have faith in something, then that something actually has to come through in a positive way. Otherwise why would anyone have faith?

If you want the forest of American business to grow strong then the roots of that forest must have the water they need. The citizenry are the roots of American business. Capitalize the citizenry. Then even if all they do is buy cheetos with their money they will still be supporting the economy. And as long as they are capitalized they will continue to support the economy.

By: Frank

Frank — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:56:34 +0000

What a minute, is this instead of the income tax or along with the income tax? If it’s instead of, I’d say it sounds great. If it’s in addition to, I’d ask if these people are nuts? The American people are overtaxed as it is. Adding more taxes is just going to push us from recession to depression.

By: weezer

weezer — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:11:58 +0000

“The cell phone working” …

Now that’s funny!
(Laughing to hard…can’t type).

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:59:46 +0000

And just for the record,,I rent,,and do not even make 35,000 a year.. Value Added Tax? What exactly does that load of horseshit mean? And look at social security,,that was supposed to be for the people who worked, for their retirement,,but it has been taken from, and abused by the government…… I want my SS back!! All I have paid in from my paychecks,,I want it in one lump sum,,it was money I worked for,,but the US Gov. stole.. Thieves!!!!!

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:50:32 +0000

A new tax?! Are you fucking kidding?! How about cut out wastefull spending of the taxes we already pay too much of!Anyone making more than 200,000 a year needs to be fired. too many people make way more than they need while doing nothing….. A new tax!? How about a new Country,,, that is why the US was started in the first place,,to get away from over taxation and being told what to think and believe… What the fuck happened?!?!?!

By: Clive S

Clive S — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:25:30 +0000

Reply to Laocoon.
You’re right that saving under a high income tax regime and spending under a high comsumer tax regime is not a good deal. This is a transitional problem which needs to be addressed through interim tax allowances but it should also be be remembered that retirees and the poorer sections of society spend a higher proportion of their income on food and other essentials. In most countries operating VAT these goods are zero rated, i.e. no tax is payable.
VAT is a replacement for Sales Tax and a slice of Income Tax. It moves spending power from Government to people, if you’re having a difficult month not spending means not paying taxes unlike Income Tax which comes off whatever your problems. If government sees VAT income reducing they have to sit up and think because that means something is happening in the real economy. If income tax reduces who knows until its too late. My politics are old fashioned Reagan and Thatcher believe me VAT is not a socialist conspiracy.

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:39:39 +0000

Any tax, which yields more money for government, will in turn, provide more resources to a government, which will use these resources to create more taxes. Like an obese person, the government should be on a high protein diet and weaned off other people’s money – our money.

P.S. Why do I feel I’m helping Reuters staff to produce more of this drivel?

By: DR

DR — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:20:21 +0000

The currently high US Federal Deficit was cause by WallStreet. Let them pay for it by charging a tax on all financial transactions(Tobin Tax). The VAT tax is a non-starter, there is no way the states are going to allow the Federal government to muzzle in on this tax by competing with the state sales tax. The states have their deficits to pay off too!

By: Laocoon

Laocoon — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:59:35 +0000

I just can’t understand how replacing a 9% sales tax with a 23% (which is really 30% or more) “Fair Tax” or a similar VAT makes any sense.

Since poor people spend all their income on consumption, this seems like a terribly regressive burden. Rich people have some to save. Since 50% of consumption is done by the top 20% of incomes, wouldn’t such a burdensome tax reduce their demand and shrink the economy even more?

Also, this discourages saving, since my lifetime of saving after-tax money means that I would be heavily taxed on consumption when I actually do spend this money in my old age. How’s that for double taxation? No, thanks.

This is the worst idea imaginable.

By: Drew

Drew — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:30:08 +0000

Christopher Swann is right.

Money should be out of the hands of ordinary citizens and in the hands of government, banks and insurance companies, who know best how to manage them.