Outcast
ATPSS
Isn't there a new VAT tax already? One that was recently thrust upon the citizens.... or is that another scare tactic I have heard these past couple of years?
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Bar Stool Economics
- Thread starter Leew
- Start date
Isn't there a new VAT tax already? One that was recently thrust upon the citizens.... or is that another scare tactic I have heard these past couple of years?
wstphal
working in the Gulag
President Obama would apparently like one, IIRC, but so far nothing has happened with it, and nothing will until 2011, if then.
One of the FEW advantages to the perpetual election cycle is that Congresscritters are unwilling to vote for things their opponents will call tax increases or new taxes.
I do hope you have read the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and UNDERSTAND what those documents were written for and what they are supposed to DO. Assuming you have, and do, then the very first step is to limit the federal government to those powers listed in those documents that give the federal government the AUTHORITY to perform those limited tasks. Using STRICT definitions of those powers, of course, without that cockamamie "stretched beyond all recognition" definition the government has used time and time again of the "commerce clause" to claim they have the virtual power and authority over absolutely everything any human being does in this country.
Pay particular attention to the ninth and tenth amendments that were put in place simply because our forefathers were afraid that the wording of the original US Constitution wasn't specific enough and needed to have those restrictions reiterated specifically within the added on Bill of Rights.
Sorry, but if you don't know what I am talking about, then you just do not have the ability to understand what I am saying without that background of knowledge and education under your belt.
Will terminating all those programs be painful to most of the US citizenship? Why yes it will. Just as undergoing surgery for cancer is painful, but the results eventually worth it, sometimes things just need to be done with the long haul in mind.
Hah! I wish it were subjected to merely double taxation.
We are taxed on what we earn, what we spend the money on, what the manufacturer's buy in the way of raw materials to make the items we buy (which are passed on directly to the cost of those items, as are corporate taxes), on services and utilities we use in our daily lives, gasoline for our cars to get to and from work, many businesses are charged an inventory tax just for HAVING inventory, and then whatever pittance you still have left when you die, that gets taxed when you pass it on to your next of kin.
Double taxation? I WISH it were only that........
tsst
Deuce is watching!
As part of a national sales tax the control for increases and decreases would HAVE to be voteable by the citizenry. Without that the politico corruptionists would do with it what they have done with most other taxes. If the citizenry votes down an increase then the goobers in DC would have to spend accordingly. We are out of control now because of their absolute ability to print money and raise taxes. We decide the budget they must use!
Outcast
ATPSS
We decide the budget they must use!
If only we could do that now... And, decide what raises they get or pay cuts they get. Wouldn't that be nice?
tsst
Deuce is watching!
It would go a long ways to making gov work for us as they are suppose to be doing now. They don't really want to work for us only the vote then they work for themselves. That's why they vote their own raises, have their own healthcare system, have their own retirement, etc etc etc. Therein lies many of the problems with our present system. Too much control of the politicians by the the politicians.
They can't be expected to participate in all that they force upon us can they?!?! They are above that, or so they believe. :realhot:
ch1ck3n_b0k
Look a bunny!
Taxes are only a symptom of the greater problem.
This is part of the point, at least the way I see it, the other side to that is the fact that the fiat currency this entire house of cards is built upon is based solely on debt. If every person in the country were able to pay off all their debt, including the government, there would be no money whatsoever in circulation. We can debate the semantics of "fair and equitable" taxation, but that never really gets at the crux of the matter. Which, in my opinion, is that we as a species need to evolve past the need for money.
I know this is kind of coming from left field here, but I figured I'd try and make my first ever post here at least moderately interesting.
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money. Cree
This is part of the point, at least the way I see it, the other side to that is the fact that the fiat currency this entire house of cards is built upon is based solely on debt. If every person in the country were able to pay off all their debt, including the government, there would be no money whatsoever in circulation. We can debate the semantics of "fair and equitable" taxation, but that never really gets at the crux of the matter. Which, in my opinion, is that we as a species need to evolve past the need for money.
I know this is kind of coming from left field here, but I figured I'd try and make my first ever post here at least moderately interesting.
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money. Cree
starsevol
Cohabbing is cruelty...
This is part of the point, at least the way I see it, the other side to that is the fact that the fiat currency this entire house of cards is built upon is based solely on debt. If every person in the country were able to pay off all their debt, including the government, there would be no money whatsoever in circulation. We can debate the semantics of "fair and equitable" taxation, but that never really gets at the crux of the matter. Which, in my opinion, is that we as a species need to evolve past the need for money.
I know this is kind of coming from left field here, but I figured I'd try and make my first ever post here at least moderately interesting.
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money. Cree
I don't know how accurate that is. My husband and I consider ourselves debt free, we do not owe on our house, our cars or our credit cards. And yet, we need money to buy the day to day basics, pay taxes, pay utilites, go to Daytona....and did I say pay taxes?
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
National sales tax...
Yes, it would be on top of whatever state sales tax exists. And it would be important NOT to have it included in the price of the item or service because we don't want it hidden - we want everyone to see acutely the impact it has! It would be a lot cheaper to carry around a $5 calculator than to pay a hidden sales tax that would likely rise a lot faster than one right out in the open. It WOULD make it painful to buy things. BUT - you wouldn't be paying more than you are now (I would want to be sure of that before I would vote for it). It would just be more OBVIOUS when you see it in front of your face as you buy an item. It is true that it could discourage consumer sales, especially at first. Maybe people would weigh their purchases more carefully, and decide to save more instead of make a particular purchase. As Rich said, it could be painful at first, but would improve things in the long run because people would be basing their purchases on the REALITY of their true costs, including those imposed by the government, unlike the illusion we are used to today.
I agree that the sales tax would have to happen CONCURRENTLY with the end of the income tax. I SURE wouldn't trust them to abolish it "later" - yeah, sure they would! It would be great if all states with income tax would switch to sales tax only, too. That would mean private individuals would no longer be subject to government record keeping - only those engaged in business would have to report. I would want to see a national sales tax applied to retail sales as most states do now. That would mean virtually no new record keeping required of anyone, unless their state doesn't already require sales tax reports and payments. It would mean a business just has to fill out one more form very similar to the one they already do for state sales tax.
Personally, I would like to see an exemption placed on only a few items that everyone truly needs - maybe all non-processed foods and a few other items. But the way exemptions are decided in Florida now is ridiculous and makes no sense at all. Various groups lobby for one item or another so that what is and is not subject to sales tax has no logical reason. So exemptions would have to be very difficult to add.
Nothing to do with sales tax, but...I would LOVE to see the Congress Critters subject to all of the same regs and programs that we lowly citizens have to endure. AND - I would love to see them unable to vote themselves raises! Maybe their pay should somehow be tied to the state of our economy, and tied to the rise and fall of the income of the "average" citizen? Or let US vote them a raise when we think they deserve it (some of them will be eligible for Medicaid if I do the salary voting, lol!).
Yes, it would be on top of whatever state sales tax exists. And it would be important NOT to have it included in the price of the item or service because we don't want it hidden - we want everyone to see acutely the impact it has! It would be a lot cheaper to carry around a $5 calculator than to pay a hidden sales tax that would likely rise a lot faster than one right out in the open. It WOULD make it painful to buy things. BUT - you wouldn't be paying more than you are now (I would want to be sure of that before I would vote for it). It would just be more OBVIOUS when you see it in front of your face as you buy an item. It is true that it could discourage consumer sales, especially at first. Maybe people would weigh their purchases more carefully, and decide to save more instead of make a particular purchase. As Rich said, it could be painful at first, but would improve things in the long run because people would be basing their purchases on the REALITY of their true costs, including those imposed by the government, unlike the illusion we are used to today.
I agree that the sales tax would have to happen CONCURRENTLY with the end of the income tax. I SURE wouldn't trust them to abolish it "later" - yeah, sure they would! It would be great if all states with income tax would switch to sales tax only, too. That would mean private individuals would no longer be subject to government record keeping - only those engaged in business would have to report. I would want to see a national sales tax applied to retail sales as most states do now. That would mean virtually no new record keeping required of anyone, unless their state doesn't already require sales tax reports and payments. It would mean a business just has to fill out one more form very similar to the one they already do for state sales tax.
Personally, I would like to see an exemption placed on only a few items that everyone truly needs - maybe all non-processed foods and a few other items. But the way exemptions are decided in Florida now is ridiculous and makes no sense at all. Various groups lobby for one item or another so that what is and is not subject to sales tax has no logical reason. So exemptions would have to be very difficult to add.
Nothing to do with sales tax, but...I would LOVE to see the Congress Critters subject to all of the same regs and programs that we lowly citizens have to endure. AND - I would love to see them unable to vote themselves raises! Maybe their pay should somehow be tied to the state of our economy, and tied to the rise and fall of the income of the "average" citizen? Or let US vote them a raise when we think they deserve it (some of them will be eligible for Medicaid if I do the salary voting, lol!).
ch1ck3n_b0k
Look a bunny!
I don't believe I'll ever live to see a scenario like I wrote about. I realize money is an integral part of our society as humans, at least as we exist currently. Perhaps it's just a bit of wishful thinking is all. We're far to selfish creatures as it stands today, and we have been for millennia.
/threadjack :shrugs:
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
A community (or country) of unselfish people with no need of money or individual reward (after all, money is basically the symbol of reward for accomplishing something) sounds very desirable and utopian. It sounds like the original idea for communism, actually - each individual would contribute towards the community according to his ability, and would take according to his needs. And that is just how it works with social insects such as bees and ants (and the Borg, lol!). However, in species that evolved such a "perfect" social world, the individual means absolutely nothing and the community means everything. An individual bee or ant is sacrificed for the good of the group without a thought. I am very oriented towards individual rights and responsibilities, and am very glad that we did not develop along those lines.
Money (or some sort of individual reward) is the result of our innate competitive spirit. Our competitiveness causes both a lot of good, and bad, in the world. Without something equivalent to money, the competition would seem kind of pointless to many, and for better or worse, would probably decrease A LOT.
In much of the animal world, the payoff in competition means the best (or most) mates for the strongest or best (however that species defines "best") males. And it may mean more or better food or shelter for individuals in some species. That usually equates to a higher survival rate for offspring of the individuals better at competing for those items. So their genes are carried forward.
If humans didn't feel the need to compete and to be rewarded for it, then we would be more like bees and ants and less like the species we are. Some might argue that it would be better that way. I don't know - but it certainly would be "different". Of course, maybe we could emulate the social insects "just a little", and keep our own unique traits, but temper them with more compassion. Some people (and societies) do that better than others. If those societies are "better" (more successful than other, more individualistic societies), then they are the ones that will survive into the future. There is probably a place somewhere along the line between ants and bees to total individualism that works great for our species, although I am not sure exactly where that line would be drawn. It probably changes a bit (or maybe even a lot), depending on the circumstances and challenges faced by a particular society at a particular time and place.
Money (or some sort of individual reward) is the result of our innate competitive spirit. Our competitiveness causes both a lot of good, and bad, in the world. Without something equivalent to money, the competition would seem kind of pointless to many, and for better or worse, would probably decrease A LOT.
In much of the animal world, the payoff in competition means the best (or most) mates for the strongest or best (however that species defines "best") males. And it may mean more or better food or shelter for individuals in some species. That usually equates to a higher survival rate for offspring of the individuals better at competing for those items. So their genes are carried forward.
If humans didn't feel the need to compete and to be rewarded for it, then we would be more like bees and ants and less like the species we are. Some might argue that it would be better that way. I don't know - but it certainly would be "different". Of course, maybe we could emulate the social insects "just a little", and keep our own unique traits, but temper them with more compassion. Some people (and societies) do that better than others. If those societies are "better" (more successful than other, more individualistic societies), then they are the ones that will survive into the future. There is probably a place somewhere along the line between ants and bees to total individualism that works great for our species, although I am not sure exactly where that line would be drawn. It probably changes a bit (or maybe even a lot), depending on the circumstances and challenges faced by a particular society at a particular time and place.
The_Thunderer
New member
Oh, Kathy... I didn't mean that the tax would be hidden... just put it on the price tag also so that those of us who are "slow" would know what to bring up to the cashier. LOL.
Lucille
New member
I find it somewhat disturbing that you are talking about shooting human beings for political reasons and yet sign every post with 'Love'.
Just a general observation.
If your Daddy couldn't pay up and they said he was no longer fit to be a citizen and demanded he leave, would you shoot him if he didn'y move fast enough?
wstphal
working in the Gulag
We won't evolve past the need for money. Money is just an easier way of swapping things around. We could evolve to being more unselfish, but we would still need money to facilitate sharing resources. Suppose you want to give food to someone who is hungry. If they live near you you can just hand it to them, but what if they don't? The money serves as a more transportable equivalent to food. What if you have lots of strawberries and want to share yummy homegrown goodness because you are a highly evolved person who wants to share, but many of the people you wish to gift with your seasonal bounty can't eat strawberries. You swap the strawberries for money, making no effort to profit, just to swap, then you swap the money for other people's fresh seasonal produce that you can then give to the people who can't eat your strawberries.
Even if somehow we evolve out of wanting to get ahead and so on, we will all need money as an exchange medium. People studied this in WWII POW camps. Guys that had cigarettes would swap them for something else, and they weren't looking to get ahead of the other POW on the swap, they were looking for fair swaps. Cigarettes became a default "money" that POWs traded for other things, and everyone was happy to get a Red Cross box that included cigarettes, even if they didn't smoke, because they could swap a pack of Lucky Strikes for a Red Cross candy bar and both POWs wound up happy with what they got.
Leew
New member
Money is not the problem. That is very shortsighted. What Betsy is saying is on the mark. Being greedy or selfish has nothing to do with money.
I am interested in all the different ideas people have come up with to make taxes more fair. What seems fair to some appears to be very unfair to others. I believe we are desperately in need of a new system. Looking at the range of ideas in this small group makes me wonder if we will ever find a consensus. In my heart, I believe someone will always feel cheated, regardless of the system.
Right now we are governed by a group of people who are making the rules, with or without our consent. To change the rules we will require their permission. Lets ask them if they will give up all the benefits they have received for being our servants.
I am interested in all the different ideas people have come up with to make taxes more fair. What seems fair to some appears to be very unfair to others. I believe we are desperately in need of a new system. Looking at the range of ideas in this small group makes me wonder if we will ever find a consensus. In my heart, I believe someone will always feel cheated, regardless of the system.
Right now we are governed by a group of people who are making the rules, with or without our consent. To change the rules we will require their permission. Lets ask them if they will give up all the benefits they have received for being our servants.
"Money" as a concept is not in itself bad or good. It's basically a common medium of exchange for good and services. It makes a much easier method for the exchange of goods and services than a barter system would be. Take for instance, trying to figure out how many chickens your fixing someone's toilet is worth. And if someone didn't have chickens, you would only be interested in fixing their toilet if they had something they were willing to trade that you may want in exchange. So the idea of money was really to create a set value in currency that the chickens would be worth and what your plumbing services would be worth in the same medium. But what was needed (and STILL is needed, in my opinion) is some sort of STANDARD in value. For instance, the gold standard that are currency was based on valued a $1 bill on $1 worth of gold which it could be exchanged for upon demand. Then later a silver standard was adopted. Some probably have those old "silver certificate" dollar bills as collectibles. But the whole idea of a gold and/or silver standard for the currency was that it LIMITED our government on how much it could spend because they could not print up any more money than could be backed up by those precious metals.
Once that got thrown out the window and we went to a currency that wasn't backed by ANYTHING other than the promises of our government that it was worth SOMETHING, then things began to unravel. Really, right now, who is to say what a $1 bill is worth? The accurate answer to that is that it is worth exactly what anyone who wants to sell you something says it is worth. And they can pick any figure they want for it's value. That, is EXTREMELY dangerous for a society to be based on as the manner in which all commerce engages in the exchange of goods and services for "something" based merely on smoke and mirrors.
I've often heard people say that it's frightening how fast prices are going up on things these days. Yes, it IS frightening, but not for the reason they are stating. What is TRULY frightening about it is that we aren't talking about price increases at all. What we are seeing is almost daily reductions in the VALUE of our money instead. Even scarier is that because there is no fixed value of money, and it is only worth what people are willing to exchange it for, all it takes is a panic to sweep across the financial backbone of this country where all confidence is lost concerning what the value of that money will be TOMORROW, and then a nasty little phenomenon called HYPER inflation sets in. What happens is that people spend like crazy today, because their money will be worth a lot less tomorrow and they want to get rid of it as fast as they can before that happens and the things they could buy today will cost MUCH more tomorrow. This can snowball way out of control, and has actually happened in the past to some countries. Heck, I have postage stamps from Germany that were worth 30 MILLION marks back then. Not that they were especially valuable, as it is really only an indication of what a postage stamp cost in relation to the VALUE of the money people had to pay for such things. Lord only knows what a carton of milk cost then in Germany....
And do you THINK the governments of those countries that went into HYPER inflation realized that was going to happen when it did? And were they able to stop it before the damage was done? Is our government smarter than they were? Don't bet on it....
ch1ck3n_b0k
Look a bunny!
Yes I believe you did say pay taxes
However you do touch upon precisely the problem in your post. You are debt free yet you still need money for everything else. If everyone were able to become debt free (not paying back borrowed money with interest) there would be no money left at all in circulation. The Federal Reserve, or rather a governor of one of the branches, admitted this quite a long time ago. The private banking consortium that "prints" our countries money has a vested interest in making sure the status quo stays just that.