VAT- values add on tax (or sales tax) read this section from the washington post about Geithner thinking about it, "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. (this is my favorite part) 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. " We tax the poor to bring down their standard of living, but hey we will give you health-care. Bull. I also find it funny, how they (the government from both administrations, have increased spending and now they need money so they will tax the poor. Didn't king louis XVI do that, right before his head was cut off?
here is another section of the article, "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". Did no one see this coming? This is how they (the government) want to pay for health-care by, "Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol " (who has those drinks; the poor. yet another tax of the poor for the poor.)
Do they (the experts and government) think we are stupid. This paragraph makes me so mad! "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." (that has to be the stupidest idea ever. ) "I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz (a yale professor) 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." And was it the People that have caused this unsustainable system or the government? It was the government who put us in two wars, and it was the government who signed a 787 billion bill to help the economy. (so wait a second, a bill that was to get us out of this downturn, now needs to be bailed-out with sales tax and other taxes. That makes no sense, why didn't they just tax us in the first place? oh that's right because the People don't like taxes.) I smell something and it stinks so bad I'm about to vomit. This is only a rant, besides the national sales tax is only being talked about nothing more. as a side show, it will be interesting if it does go to congress and the senate to see if the senators from Oregon and other non-sales tax states vote against the bill since it is clear that the People they represent don't want a sales tax.
forgive me for my rant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So i have a few questions. (1) Are you opposed to healthcare for everyone? (2) Are you an anarchist? (That is a serious question)
ReplyDeletequestion number 1) how VAT is set up, it would tax the poor so they (the government) could give them health-care. It just seems like an extra step. I understand the government could get the health-care costs down. But that means someone is lossing. If it costs $400 a month for health-care and if the government gave you health-care for $100 a month, who is paying the $300? Are the doctors getting a pay cut? are the rich paying higher taxes? both? are the insurance companies lossing out on money?
ReplyDeleteBut yet again, if health-care is $400 a month, who can afford that? But can the same people who can't afford health-care afford another tax? Take me for example, it would cost me $100 a week for health-care. In one week I was paid 223.25 and 24.57 was taken out for taxes. (so my 223.25 has already been taxed) Then they put a 10% national sales tax on goods, that is in addition to new yorks 8% tax. To live i need to send 100 for food a week. at 18% sales tax I have to spend an extra $18 for food. so the total is now $32.57 dollars taxed. Plus i need a phone, internet and transportation, so that would add up to let say $100. so I would be taxed $18 on that, making the total $50.57 taxed. giving me a total of $49.43 in savings from health-care a week. hey that's not bad. so that week I spent $250.57 dollars, but i only made 223.25, so i'm in the red by $27.32 a week.
That's a lot of number sorry. then you look at it on a national level, the united states has already spend 1.3 Trillion this year, and it is only May. The united states is bailing-out car companies, banks, other nations and all that. the cost of health-care would be through the roof. the poor would still be poor, and the nation can't afford it. where is the money going to come from?
now you may say, well the poor maybe still poor but now they have health-care. true, but i don'g believe health-care is a natural right that all People have a right too. I see it more as a luxury item.
that was longer than i want. sorry i write really long posts, I'll work on that.
question number 2) I am not an anarchist, because i beleive there needs to be a government set up to protect the natural rights of the society's citizens. anarchy is just stupid, and goes against human nature. we are social beings and to not have a social form of protection seems unnatural. But i would say i side very close to anarchy. If you can keep the government as close to anarchy without going over, than that government protects the rights without interfering with those rights. No one should be allowed to kill, no one should be allowed to steal; i think are the really only two laws that need to be set up. granted you add a few sub-laws that fall under the two. such as contracts between businesses and fellow citizens should be protected and held under the law. The us constitution was only a few pages, the environmental bill that the congress is setting up right now is over 900 pages, they in fact have hired a spead reader so they can say they read it. (unlike the stimulus bill which was over 1000 pages, no one read that.) what i'm saying is, the more simple the system is and more clearly defined so that everyone knows a good understanding of the law and rules, the smoother the society and government can run. But i can assure you, that i am not an anarchist. government is needed, but it should be limited.
Well, i asked question one not in terms of the VAT but just in general. You seem to be opposed to the rich paying higher taxes and the poor paying higher taxes and i can't see any reason why the middle class should pay the higher taxes. In that case, how is something like this going to be paid for. But if you don't think that everyone should have healthcare then any argument i make about the VAT or tax revenue supporting healthcare would be useless.
ReplyDeleteas for #2, I agree that anarchy is a pipe dream that is only practical in villages of 10 like minded friends. But i think that a government as small as the one you want is just as impractical. It would end up being like the articles of confederation. I was thinking this morning about this topic and i thought, "hey, i know what my next open post monday question will be!" I want hoping you could outline what your ideal government would be. If you could more or less strip away every part of our government and put back the essential pieces or add ones that are missing, what would that look like? I was wondering for a couple reasons. (1) My mind is too limited to be able to picture it on my own. (2) We have had many conversations debating big v. small government and i would like to be able to piece all those ideas you have together and see your whole picture. Maybe you want to think about it and then write something on monday or maybe we can just start spelling it out here.
yeah, i guess health-care and taxes is kind of a dead end with me. but it sounded so sad when you wrote, "But if you don't think that everyone should have healthcare then any argument i make about the VAT or tax revenue supporting healthcare would be useless". i think we talked about it before, and how i would be willing to put health-care as a discount by the government, so lets say health-care is $400 a month, if you were poor enough the government would pay for 100 of it, and the money would come from taxing the upper-class and health-care bonds.
ReplyDeleteBut great idea about the government thing. I have a few ideas that it would be great to bounce off of you and sara and dan (if he ever joins again). I was thinking what would be the best way to lay it out, and i was thinking if we place it under main topics; government set up, taxes, protection of rights (courts/military) can you think of any others. and then have those as subject posts. I would be interested in hearing what your thoughts of style of government, both sara and nathan.
yeah, i was hoping to have a discussion afterwards but it would be nice to hear your system laid out.
ReplyDelete