Jump to Navigation

Taxes

I'm not sure where to put this so here it is! Has anyone heard the latest on what they want to do with taxes? THey want to add a national SALES TAX up to 25%!!!!! And this is not to replace the income tax, just a NEW tax!
That is to say nothing about Obama's carbon tax (he's been talking about that for a while) which will make gas go up to more than $4 again. Also the state wants to add a new gas and diesel tax! Did they ever, ever think about slowing down on the spending. I cannot believe it. Yesterday, I was in the car so had the radio on and that was all they were talking about. I got so frustrated, I just can't tell you. Stop spending, stop spending, stop spending!

Forums:

I heard GM will go bankrupt and then get another 30 to 50 BILLION dollars more on top of the 20 BILLION they've already gotten.

Talk about too much spending!!!!!!!!!! Good Gawd!

xrayspx's picture

I found an article that does a decent job of explaining this mess.

What bugs me is the same people who were trying to get rid of AMT are thinking seriously about the VAT. Who do I hate here then?

One thing I didn't see mentioned, which I'm sure one of you knows, is a little more info about the overall tax structure in the countries they cite (Europe mainly). Do they have all the layers of tax we enjoy here in the states? For instance, are French people paying VAT + national income tax + income tax for the province they live in + income tax for the province they /work/ in + property tax and town taxes?

I've already said that if NH goes crazy and implements an income tax, I'm quitting my job in Mass, where I have the privilege of paying 5.3% income tax for a state in which I use none of the services. Seems to me there was a party of some kind a couple of hundred years ago regarding this very topic of taxation without representation. Anyone remember where that was? Bueller?

The VAT tax and the Sales Tax are actually two different types of taxes, at least that is what they were saying on the radio. The VAT is taxed each step of the way, maufacturer, distributor, delivery, retail, and whoever else, while the Sales Tax is at the end sale. VAT would be around 12% but each step would be higher because the percentage is already added into the product. So it would end up around 14 or 16 percent
We have friends who have relatives who live in England. One is a dentist and one a doctor and they both only work part of the year and then stop because their taxes are so high, they will be giving it all to the gov. They live in modest houses.
I think that is what I will do if the gov. keeps taxing us to death! I am sick of it! You guys too?
That is exactly why I don't want national health care because if we pay for it that way, it will cost us many times more than we pay now. But so many people think it will be free, they just don't understand. Plus in one of the books of Obama's staff guys he wrote that health care would have to be rationed. Just what you need. Who is going to determine the value of someone's life?

xrayspx's picture

I think what I was getting at is the point that people are trying to push that VAT could replace a lot of the taxes people pay now. In the article they're saying it could eliminate income tax on households under $100k/year, and reduce income tax for the rest of us.

However, I don't think states would be quick to give up any of their taxes, so even /IF/ the Federal tax burden was lessened, we'd still all be paying state income and sales tax + VAT?

A lot of the context here seems to be that the govt. should consider a VAT as a path toward paying for universal healthcare. If /that/ is the case, then we are all covered, and can dismantle Medicare/Medicaid, and the tax dough going to those would be used for this instead.

As I saw in another thread, it doesn't look like anyone who's actually been elected to anything is pushing this new tax. The closest they'd seen was Rahm Emmanual's brother. I don't remember caring what Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, or Neal Bush have to say about anything either, so it doesn't look like this is imminent or anything, thank god.

Even if someone drafted a bill, it would probably never clear Congress, and no first-term president would likely sign off on it.

As I saw in another thread, it doesn't look like anyone who's actually been elected to anything is pushing this new tax.

Well then, we should just have a referendum vote on it.

On the other hand, a referendum vote on a hotbutton issue will often fail, which is why it is often courts that decide.

We should let the Judiciary decide.

xrayspx's picture

Keep the strawmen to a minimum. The point is there is no movement to push this through the legislature. Obama isn't saying "I wanna do this, here's a bill", and I haven't seen any proposals from the Congressional floor.

The Judiciary forcing regulations down our throats in my other argument is in regards to constitutional law and the protections it provides. They decided in Brown vs. Board of Education for example that "Separate but Equal" schools are not good enough. In California and Massachusetts, they similarly decided that the constitutional right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" includes the right to marry someone of your same gender.

This has nothing to do with tax law, I'm unaware of any instance of a court writing new tax code. However, they can decide whether a given tax is constitutional or not, and throw them out. For instance, interstate transport tariffs are unconstitutional, so if Massachusetts decided to impose an import tax on any goods crossing the border from New Hampshire, that would be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

Don't conflate the two, it annoys people who understand how multiple branches of the government work, and it makes your arguments look moronic.

Could not have said that any better xray.

While reading these posts on taxes, my mind went to the Boston Globe's assertion that all we normally talk about here in Wolfeboro are taxes and real estate. Here we are only a few days later and what are we talking about? Taxes. Well, I guess the old Globe knows us better than we know ourselves. Have any other Forum participants noticed that real estate isn't selling very well?
oc

LOL, oc! You are right, here we are talking about taxes! My fault I guess. Maybe I just copied the Globe. You know if you have the name play the game kind of thing???!!! Seriously though, that is all they were talking about on the radio on Wed. and I got so frustrated as I said!

Are you thinking of selling your house oc?

x, I wouldn't have a problem with a VAT Tax or a Fair Tax if it would REPLACE the income tax, but according to what they were saying it would not do that , it would be added because the country is so desperate for money given what the new deficit plus the wish for national health care. That is why I am so upset. The gov. is not our mother or father or nanny. Stop taking care of us. Stop spending for our own good!!!! Let us keep our own money and if we can do that we can take care of ourselves a lot better than you can!!

You almost had me there tis. No, the old place isn't for sale. It is worth a good deal more than I paid for it, but it's not worth what it once was. Guess it doesn't make much difference, as long as you stay put!
oc

You're right oc, as long as you stay put, it doesn't matter! Only if you HAVE to sell in this market are you hurt!

What do you think of this article?

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

xrayspx's picture

You have to be really careful with Pravda.ru. It's really amusing, but it's pretty much the Weekly World News. For instance, here's evidence that the US faked our moon landing. Strangely I've always believed in the moon landing more for the fact that we weren't smart enough to fake it. I mean, look at the level of special effects in the highest budget movies from the late '60s and early '70s.

As for Marxism, will. not. happen. Does anyone think people get two Ivy League degrees so they can not be capitalists? The bailout package we ended up with wasn't materially different than anything McCain proposed, for instance. The stage was set for just such a package by the Bush administration. They bailed out several banks, Fannie/Freddy and AIG during their term.

I don't equate universal health care with Marxism. (The following is all coming from someone working in the health-care IT field). US costs for procedures and visits are completely out of line with the rest of the world. It's not really doctor's salaries, though it doesn't help things when a newly minted OB/GYN can pull 1/4 million/year. But you have to remember where that 1/4 million goes. That doctor will often pay 30+ percent in malpractice insurance, plus the 30-34% tax bracket they end up in. It makes it a no-win game, and they end up taking home less than I do as a high-school dropout, except they end up with $200,000 in student loans.

Sounds like a real treat for the doctors.

Just for the fun of it, I started googling X-Ray costs. An equine leg xray, two views, $90 on the high side, and someone else was $25/view.

Human Spinal X-ray: $227.00. Human abdominal x-ray, $133.00. Take into account that humans are more apt to do what they're told, not kick an xray technician in the face, etc, and it's a major WTF for me.

I got the human costs from Aultman hospital, I got the equine costs from Horse Advice. These are sites I just found at random, so I have no real insight beyond what I'm reading.

The US spends roughly 2/3 (edit:two-thirds, not "two to three") trillion between medicaid and medicare. I have to believe a complete re-think of all of this allocation could result in a much smaller administration of those funds, and lower costs for everyone involved.

Personally, I spent a week in the hospital 12 years ago, which cost upwards of $30,000. No knife ever threatened to touch my skin, let alone actually remove anything. My spleen had ruptured, but they decided (thank god) to observe me rather than just take it out. If I continued dying, they'd remove it, if I stabilized, they wouldn't remove it. So I laid on my back at $1200/day with no food for 6 days and no drink for 4 days. So I know the costs didn't go to the commissary :-)

Health care's a hard problem though. So are taxes, I guess, but I know for a fact that there are lots of procedures done and medications prescribed that really don't need to happen. We're looking at market economies and the hospitals will charge what people are willing to pay. If people rush to the doctor every time they get tennis elbow and gladly shell out hundreds for x-rays or thousands for CT scans and MRIs, then take expensive drugs, well, the market is completely right to charge whatever they can get away with.

I think that, universal health care or not, there are two major problems at work: 1:) People are huge wusses compared to times past, and are willing to pay, or make their insurance company pay, whatever it takes to fix them. 2:) People are living way longer now than in times past, often with complex and expensive care. We can't have a health-care policy designed to deal with 1950's problems and expect it to work today.

I think that our leaders have no problem with whatever they do to our country as long as they can live the cushy life! I call taking over private companies, tellng them how much they can pay their executives, how they can advertise, etc. Communism. I know Communism, Fascism, Socialism, all are not the same but they both are government takeovers in my mind and I don't like any of them. Just like in Communism, they don't want anyone to have anything, just the bare essentials, -----except them of course. While many are struggling in this country you don't see Obama giving up a single thing, do you? And he is someone who wasn't president just months ago and not used to being a god. It shouldn't be too hard for him to be a little frugal-frugal by presidential standards that is.

Well, it looks like my attempt at ironic humor fell flat.

Is it okay at this forum to term anyone's discussion as moronic, or suggest that another poster is a moron?

they can decide whether a given tax is constitutional or not, and throw them out.

Your phrasing style persists into another thread.

Once again, you can't use the phrase "and throw them out" in the same sentence as "they can decide whether a given tax is constitutional or not".

This, and a previous, unanswered comment @ http://www.xrayspx.com/nh-house-rejects-quotgay-marriagequot are the phrasings of a "John F. Kerry elitist".

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

A VAT tax will pay for free medical care. It should become a referendum vote. Who wouldn't be for it?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

This makes no sense.

Sor-ry.

I was not a-ware you had joined this for-um, oth-er-wise, I would have writ-ten it in sing-le syl-la-bles.

Just put your in-dex fin-ger un-der each word and move your fin-ger a-long as you mouth the syl-la-bles. It's o-kay to move your lips.

Call your mo-ther down to the base-ment, and have her read a-long with you.

>>

Peace_through_Weak-ness

Thanks for backing up my previous comment.

Duh, it took me a bit but now I get it. I think you anonymous are CW's best buddy right?

I think that, universal health care or not, there are two major problems at work: 1:) People are huge wusses compared to times past, and are willing to pay, or make their insurance company pay, whatever it takes to fix them. 2:) People are living way longer now than in times past, often with complex and expensive care. We can't have a health-care policy designed to deal with 1950's problems and expect it to work today.

The be-ne-fits of Bri-tain's Na-tion-al Health Ser-vice and Aus-tra-lia's health-care sys-tems are just a VAT tax a-way.

MOVE that for-mer-ly un-taxed cap-i-tal into Gov-ern-ment, where MUCH GOOD can come from it.

>>

Peace_through_Weak-ness

I don't understand what you are trying to say Tis.

It appears PTW is not a very nice person to reply like he/she did.

Duh, dit-to, tis.

To a harm-less but a-non-y-mous pos-ter, it is an un-fath-om-able mys-ter-y if P-T-W is a he - or - a - she as he says here:

It appears PTW is not a very nice person to reply like he/she did.

May-be I should not have men-tioned his mo-ther and his base-ment a-part-ment in the same sen-tence. There-fore, I a-pol-o-gize for that.

Tis, it is up-on you to re-set this en-ti-re thread back on-to its pro-per track. I will at-tempt a-gain with the o-pen-er.

Tis had writ-ten:

THey want to add a national SALES TAX up to 25%!!!!! And this is not to replace the income tax, just a NEW tax!

P-T-W an-swers:

And they have add-ed a-noth-er three-hun-dred I - R - S em-ploy-ees to the gov-ern-ment pay-roll. An ex-pense a-gainst tax-pay-ers which will be add-ed to our taxes e-ven af-ter they have re-tired. (And e-ven af-ter WE re-tire!)

Big Bro-ther must de-ter-mine who has been hi-ding all The Gov-ern-ment's mo-ney dur-ing the pre-vi-ous ad-min-is-tra-tion.

We are le-gal-ly re-qui-red to save a dec-ade's worth of I - R - S doc-u-ments in sup-port of all those Gov-ern-ment 10-40 re-turns we sub-mit-ted du-ring those eight years of the pre-vi-ous ad-min-is-tra-tion.

>>

Peace_through_Weak - ness

This makes no sense to me. PTW, what is your problem?

PTW answers:

And they have added another three hundred I R S employees to the government payroll. An expense against taxpayers which will be added to our taxes even after they have retired. (And even after WE retire!)

Big Brother must determine who has been hiding all The Government's money during the previous administration.

We are legally required to save a decade's worth of I R S documents in support of all those Government 1040 returns we submitted during those eight years of the previous adminstration.

>>

Peace_through_Weak - ness

OR, go to:

»

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ZKl583goqgQJ:www.commongroundcommons...

Communism is having one company owned wholly by the government and excluding all others, with the government setting the price.

Take GM. GM is basically entering receivership. They're selling off divisions as we speak, Penske is said to be looking at Saturn, Fiat is trying to buy GM's European ops (Opel). They will then be spun back out as a public company. The UAW may own a load of stock (40%), albeit without voting board membership. But it will be a public company in which you may buy shares.

You couldn't do that with Mikoyan or Volga (planes, cars) in the Soviet Union.

If you look at banks and finance, I think the hysteria is even worse. 20 years of Randian De-regulation and "market economics" with few restrictions led to massive financial abuses and bank failures. So the banks are "too big to fail", they get bailed out, Bank of America even gets /forced/ basically at gunpoint by the old administration to buy Merrill, and then the right complains about the need for oversight and regulation all over again. Fantastic.

Tis made a previous point in re: referendum voting on tax law. There are three reasons that won't work. 1:) Very few people will vote for taxation on people like them. 2:) No regular people are going to read thousands of pages of tax code, so no one will understand it. 3:) Rich People (rightly) wouldn't allow it, since they're a visible minority with a huge target on their backs.

The link that you supplied PTW is very good, please take a few minutes and read it. Once you do you will see you have broken several of them yourself.

The main point, which I didn't get pasted into my other reply is that our country isn't founded on "no taxation", or "everyone gets a vote on taxation", the revolution came about because of taxation with representation. The British were taxing the colonies, but not giving them any seats in legislature, so it was a tyranny of paying out money with no say into what that was spent on.

The reason we have a representative democracy is to abstract complex issues like taxation from the public, so everyone doesn't need to think too deeply about how to divvy up public funds and how to tax what brackets. I'm not saying our legislators are geniuses, please note that. I don't think Rangel or Pelosi are inherently more able to think these things through, in fact, those two are bad examples, they might be less able.

However, we can vote for our government based on the central ideals of the candidate, and if that candidate turns around and fucks us, we get rid of them the next election cycle.

At least that's the theory.

I don't want to vote on an individual tax issue myself.

And to PTW's point about "ending up with the mess of Canadian health care", two points. Canadian care seems to be better for things like long-term care, but worse at urgent care. If you have cancer or diabetes, you want to be in Canada, if you have a heart attack, you want to be in America.

Secondly, we're friggin AMERICANS, don't you think we can do a better job anyway?

I don't think those in Congress are capable of much. And I don't think we can do a better job than the Canadians either. And no according to Canadian friends, their urgent care is not better than their other care. They don't like it. I was just talking to a relative a few minutes ago who lives in Washington state and works in the health industry and she says that anyone who has duel citizenship comes to the US for their care. And I have told before about the friends whose father had such a bad heart they made him an appointement here because he was going to die waiting for his turn there.
So this is really about taxes, I guess we got talking about healthcare because the new VAT tax is for the new healthcare system and deficit. I agree, we should vote these people OUT but not enough people pay attention to what is going on or WANT the nanny state. There are so many people that don't work now and want to be taken care of. They will vote for those who want to take care of them. They think the caretakers care for them, well they don't give a damn for them, they just want to be voted back in.
Again, if we could get rid of the INCOME TAX and replace it with a VAT tax or FAIR tax, it would be fine with me. I think it would be a lot harder for people to cheat. But this is NOT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Obama and friends just want to ADD to what we pay now.
BTW did you hear Obama FLEW HIS WIFE UP TO NY LAST NIGHT TO GO TO THE THEATER AND OUT TO DINNER! TRUE JETSETTERS. How appropriate is that with the economy? How many millions did that cost us????????????????????????????

Here's a link telling about the Obama's date night. I agree with the republicans, does it look good for them to do this with the economy the way it is the GM's bankruptcy coming right up??

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23122.html

While I have only a modest supply of Canadian friends, those who I do have are unanimous in their enthusiasm for Canada's healthcare system. In the case of one couple that I know, both require extensive ongoing therapy.
oc

And to PTW's point about "ending up with the mess of Canadian health care"

I said that?

:-\

(No strawman, that one).

Communism is having one company owned wholly by the government and excluding all others, with the government setting the price.

Correct: Our current and fearful mess with GM is akin to the Fascism as practiced by Socialist-Thug Benito Mussolini.

Wikipedia:
"He was now one of Italy's most prominent Socialists. In 1911...there was a riot by Socialists...against the Italian war in Libya."

"Mussolini pushed for government control of business: by 1935, Mussolini claimed that three quarters of Italian businesses were under state control. That same year, he issued several edicts to further control the economy...In 1943 he proposed the theory of economic socialization..."
(There's much more there about Fascism and the Socialist-Thug Mussolini).

So, it would appear that GM needs total control by benevolent government bureaucrats—and what they can't control, they should make sure that only contributors to our one-party system are fully and amply rewarded. :-\

I'm not saying our legislators are geniuses, please note that.

That's good, because the only thing a legislator is interested in, is re-election to the power inherent in that office.

I don't think Rangel or Pelosi are inherently more able to think these things through, in fact, those two are bad examples, they might be less able.

Rangel can't understand his island-getaway taxes any better than the Secretary of the Treasury Geithner can.

In support of Pelosi, her big planes, hypocrisy, taxes, and lies about the CIA, Pelosi never waterboarded anyone.

:-\

Fiat is trying to buy GM's European ops (Opel).

Opel makes some fast, and great little/medium sized cars.

There may be money to be made to bring them to the US, but the Euro (against the dollar) is too strong to do it now.

>>

Peace_through_Weakness

Pages



Forum | by Dr. Radut