WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.
Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, "I want to get a better picture of what our options are."
After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" resolution that calls the such a tax "a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery."
For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.
"I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn't something that the president had under consideration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.
After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is "not considering" a VAT.
Many European countries impose a VAT, which taxes the value that is added at each stage of production of certain commodities. It could apply, for instance, to raw products delivered to a mill, the mill's production work and so on up the line to the retailer.
In the CNBC interview, Obama said he was waiting for recommendations from a bipartisan fiscal advisory commission on ways to tackle the deficit and other problems.
When asked if he could see a potential VAT in this nation, the president said: "I know that there's been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It's something that would be novel for the United States."
"And before, you know, I start saying 'this makes sense or that makes sense,' I want to get a better picture of what our options are," Obama said.
He said his first priority "is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that."
Volcker has said taxes might have to be raised to slow the deficit's growth. He said a value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it had been in the past.
Since then, some GOP lawmakers and conservative commentators have said the Obama administration is edging toward a VAT.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: If they do the VAT their gonna have to do some slick talking as to how it doesn't tax the 47% that don't pay income tax now.
well, they would prolly give a VAT tax bonus rebate to those people with their earned income tax credit bonus rebate, and their "making employment work" tax rebate bonus too....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Politicians have been talking about vat taxes for years I don't think they would do it.
What we should put a vat tax on are any imports or out of country manufactuer no matter where they are doing business that should send a message to the rest of the world.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: If they do the VAT their gonna have to do some slick talking as to how it doesn't tax the 47% that don't pay income tax now.
well, they would prolly give a VAT tax bonus rebate to those people with their earned income tax credit bonus rebate, and their "making employment work" tax rebate bonus too....
And who's gonna figure all that out? LMAO
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!!
IP: Logged |
i know that people who can't afford to pay taxes at all can't be taxed because the economy will not grow if you do.
i'm getting sick of all the tax crybabies.
i was just in the DC area where i learned that the county now charges businesses 65$ (to keep taxes low ) for their fire inspections the fire inspection turns up a sprinkler that needs testing 300$ more plus a full system test of the electronic monitoring devices another 250$...
but it's day care center and the kids need to be safe right? cuz it's ahigh class place and $8,000/yr is worht it for the kiddies.
i get it. it costs alot of money to keep all those testers and inspectors in their $400,000 homes, they both have to work to qualify for that 4000/mo mortgage which also means there's another 20,000$ per year for the three kids in day care
in the meantime? what do they actually MAKE in that county? not a daqmn thing but paperwork for the govt.
welcome to our society, it's no just the govt that's broke(n).
[ April 26, 2010, 12:31: Message edited by: glassman ]
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Lawmaker calls for creation of transaction tax By Jay Heflin - 04/23/10 09:22 AM ET
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Penn.) on Thursday called for President Obama's debt commission to condider legislation that would tax all transactions to help reduce the country's growing deficit and $12.8 trillion debt.
Obama's Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will begin discussions next week on ways to stem the tide of red ink in Washington.
Fattah has introduced legislation imposing a 1 percent tax on all transactions, retail and financial, except stock sales. The tax would be broadly applied to any transaction involving cash, check or credit card, and would replace existing federal taxes on individuals and businesses.
Fattah argues by including a wide range of transactions in the tax, the levy could be relatively small and still be effective in balancing governmental coffers.
"By expanding the base of revenue collection to the broadest possible level, the percentage fee could be reduced to a near miniscule amount," the congressman stated in a letter to the debt panel.
"According to estimates from the Federal Reserve, the annual volume of transactions in the U.S. economy in 2008 was approximately $755 trillion. Raising revenue to cover the roughly $2.6 trillion federal budget would require a transaction fee on all transactions of up to one percent."
at first glance this sounds plausible, if you get rid of all other federal taxes...
it means a dollar is only 99cents tho, until you respend it then it's only 98 cents then on the next it's only...... sooner or later that dollar is really a penny
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Lawmaker calls for creation of transaction tax By Jay Heflin - 04/23/10 09:22 AM ET
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Penn.) on Thursday called for President Obama's debt commission to condider legislation that would tax all transactions to help reduce the country's growing deficit and $12.8 trillion debt.
Obama's Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will begin discussions next week on ways to stem the tide of red ink in Washington.
Fattah has introduced legislation imposing a 1 percent tax on all transactions, retail and financial, except stock sales. The tax would be broadly applied to any transaction involving cash, check or credit card, and would replace existing federal taxes on individuals and businesses.
Fattah argues by including a wide range of transactions in the tax, the levy could be relatively small and still be effective in balancing governmental coffers.
"By expanding the base of revenue collection to the broadest possible level, the percentage fee could be reduced to a near miniscule amount," the congressman stated in a letter to the debt panel.
"According to estimates from the Federal Reserve, the annual volume of transactions in the U.S. economy in 2008 was approximately $755 trillion. Raising revenue to cover the roughly $2.6 trillion federal budget would require a transaction fee on all transactions of up to one percent."
at first glance this sounds plausible, if you get rid of all other federal taxes...
it means a dollar is only 99cents tho, until you respend it then it's only 98 cents then on the next it's only...... sooner or later that dollar is really a penny
This is the change we can believe in? Thats all they do is mess with taxes.
IP: Logged |
posted
All the companies will do is pass the cost of the new tax on to the consumer, I really don't see how a VAT does anything but further fleece the American Taxpayer. Does anybody here really think that any company out there will just absorb the VAT into their bottom line?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: All the companies will do is pass the cost of the new tax on to the consumer, I really don't see how a VAT does anything but further fleece the American Taxpayer. Does anybody here really think that any company out there will just absorb the VAT into their bottom line?
nope. but say, let's go ahead and cut the Govt. let's get rid of all safety laws,inspections, and the whole regulation arm of the govt in all areas, you are on your own and if your lawyer isn't the best? tuff luck ...
your salad can make you sit on the toilet for week till you drop from fatigue,
your toothpaste can have lead and mercury in it and nobthing will happen to anybody but you..
a jet flies with five years of maintenance due- the engine falls off, and maybe your kids will get enough to have a memorial, but maybe not cuz the airline will say it an act God...
face it, all this crap costs alot of bux, and somebody has to pay.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not advocating a return to anarchy by elimating all sources of revenue for the Government...
My point is, if you are going to do a VAT, you might as well just raise income tax because we are going to end up paying it anyway. Why do we need a middle man other than to try to disguise the fact that this would just be another tax the already overburdened individual taxpayer will be forced to pay?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: I'm not advocating a return to anarchy by elimating all sources of revenue for the Government...
My point is, if you are going to do a VAT, you might as well just raise income tax because we are going to end up paying it anyway. Why do we need a middle man other than to try to disguise the fact that this would just be another tax the already overburdened individual taxpayer will be forced to pay?
well, the Conservative movement is based in cutting taxes, the Liberal movement is based in raising taxes.
somehow people seem to want everything- as long as someody else pays...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah well, as a single male with no kids who gets only the standard deduction, and who hasn't had a tax refund in 15 years, I for one, am sick of being that somebody. I don't want half the crap the government taxes me to provide anyway.
I don't mind paying some taxes, and I realize we are in the red which means less spending or higher taxes, (and we all know less spending is never gonna happen), but one of these days it's going to reach a point where people who contribute most to the system have no more to contribute, and what are all the people who benefit from the system going to do then?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want half the crap the government taxes me to provide anyway.
i can't rationally disagree with that, the problem is that the things you want are not necessarily the things the other taxpayers want, and who gets to pick? the elections decide it...
people who contribute most to the system have no more to contribute,
dead on point. to my way of thinking? the NFL and NASCAR which i love both contribute nothing. Tiger Woods is really contributing a billion$ to our world? nope. Tax him extra for being overpaid IMO>
people say they create jobs but not one of thiose jobs contibute anything either..
once inawhile a racing technology makes it into the real cars we dirve, but mostly racing wasn't needed to get them anyway..
the way they calculate GDP anymore is just one big lie IMO...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
i can't rationally disagree with that, the problem is that the things you want are not necessarily the things the other taxpayers want, and who gets to pick? the elections decide it...
True and I see your point. I guess my issue is that often times what most people want from the government is just that, something they want, not necessarily something they need because they can't provide it for themselves and through majority rules, everyone is forced to pay for it or accept the penalties. I look around and what I see are most people neglecting their personal responsibilities in life, and accepting a higher tax rate in exchange for big brother taking care of it for them, for a small fee of course. That kind of thinking will just create a government similar to the one in George Orwell's "1984", and foster the growth of a people completely dependant on that government to survive...
What's that? Oh. Mission Accomplished.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
well, you and i see the same thing, but what i see in it is alot of people that are running the rat race so hard they can't even do what they really need to do.
Winning the rat race doesn't mean you lost the beady eyes and tail i guess.
i left (moved my home) the Wash DC area in the 90's and i was back last week for the first time in afew years and what i saw was a complete mess. It takes major govt to have all those communities of Mcmansions and townhouses that stretch for acouple million acres there, and other places...
i get bummed alot about living in backwater MS, but trip to a big city once inawhile and i get a good attitude adjustment. Esp if get out on the beltway at 4:30 pm mon-fri i can still go pee in the backyard here so i guess i'm still somewhat free
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I see your point there too. But IMO, part of the reason people are stuck in the "rat race" is because of excessive taxes and inflation. Paying the government to take of things you might be too busy to take care of only leads to higher taxes, which leads to more hours at work for the same or lesser standard of living. It's a never ending treadmill, and we are the rats.
How can you possibly get ahead when everything you might save is diluted the longer you hold it? How can you get ahead when any time you earn more, you fork more of it over to the Gov?
Maybe tax rates should be based not on how much you make but how you make your money. People who make a living entertaining should be taxed more than people who make a living saving lives because they are already "giving back" to society every day they get up and go to work.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Yeah, I see your point there too. But IMO, part of the reason people are stuck in the "rat race" is because of excessive taxes and inflation. Paying the government to take of things you might be too busy to take care of only leads to higher taxes, which leads to more hours at work for the same or lesser standard of living. It's a never ending treadmill, and we are the rats.
How can you possibly get ahead when everything you might save is diluted the longer you hold it? How can you get ahead when any time you earn more, you fork more of it over to the Gov?
Maybe tax rates should be based not on how much you make but how you make your money. People who make a living entertaining should be taxed more than people who make a living saving lives because they are already "giving back" to society every day they get up and go to work.
i'm a huge NASCR fan and see Dale Jr getting 30 million per year..
he's only a competent driver as far as i am concerned...
taxing him 40% is not unfair IMO,
cutting taxes only works to a certain point.
when Reagan cut them from 70% to 40% it was agood thing IMO, but Cap Gains at 15% is proving to be bad, even tho there's a logical expalnation that i admit sounds good to lower it that low..
i wouldn't like raising it either, but it seems to me that people in general got too greedy when the tax was that low...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: If I am a teabagger like Jordan says, then wouldnt that mean he is the one getting teabagged?
it's way too soon to define what a teabagger is.
TEA? Taxed Enough Already..
if Sarah Palin is one? then i am prolly not. If limbugger is one? then i think its all a big joke.
elect some people that are Tea Party and see them do some good work? i'll seriously consider calling myself one.
i am not ashamed to say that i think we should send illegal aliens back even if they have US kids, they knew what they were doing, and their kids still have the right to come back if they want to someday.
i am willing to defend our 2nd ammendment rights at any cost, i swore to that when i enlisted and it hasn't changed IMO...
but Sarah Palin is a joke IMO, if she's the head tea partier? then it's still a joke IMO
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Glassman, Illegal's have Illegal babies, only children born of USA citizens should recieve immidate citizenship.
A non-citizen's child should recieve citizenship from the same country their parents have citizenship.
END of problem.
i did look for how they came up with the being born here to get citizenship automatically.
the slaves after the civil war are the source of this "problem". The fourteenth ammendment was written to address it.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
in other words? you have to have an ammnedment to fix that if you want your idea to be law.
the Fourteenth Amendment overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had excluded slaves and their descendants from Constitutional rights.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: Glassman, Illegal's have Illegal babies, only children born of USA citizens should recieve immidate citizenship.
A non-citizen's child should recieve citizenship from the same country their parents have citizenship.
END of problem.
i did look for how they came up with the being born here to get citizenship automatically.
the slaves after the civil war are the source of this "problem". The fourteenth ammendment was written to address it.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
in other words? you have to have an ammnedment to fix that if you want your idea to be law.
the Fourteenth Amendment overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had excluded slaves and their descendants from Constitutional rights.
So it's an outdated law that should be changed.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!!
IP: Logged |
posted
it's not a law, there's a difference between a law and a cosntitutional right.
ammending the constitution is almost impossible.
there are so-called easy ways to do it by calling aconvention, but you do not want to go there. If they held on tomorrow? it's 85% likely thatwe would come out of it with a new civil war, cuz the 2nd ammendment would be sliced and diced.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
In the case of the Philadelphia Convention, delegates met for the "sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." George Washington was elected president of this convention. Once the body convened, meeting and deliberations were conducted in secrecy with James Madison serving as recorder. It was rapidly decided that the body would ignore the limitations of its call and propose the replacement of the Articles with an entirely new basic instrument of government.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) for their fire inspections the fire inspection turns up a sprinkler that needs testing 300$ more plus a full system test of the electronic monitoring devices another 250$...![[Smile]](smile.gif)
