I heard a business owner -auto garage I think - say they estimated the health care cost, wheether coverage or tax, would add about $8/hour to their rates.

I am sure that only Americans making high six figure incomes will pay the higher rates (end sarcasm)

(07-18-2009 08:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I heard a business owner -auto garage I think - say they estimated the health care cost, wheether coverage or tax, would add about $8/hour to their rates.

I am sure that only Americans making high six figure incomes will pay the higher rates (end sarcasm)

Using the CBO's figures, "milking the rich" as proposed won't even come close to paying for the plan after Year 5.

The only way they can pay for this long term is a VAT or "National Sales Tax"... and I'd like to pin down Congressman NOW and get them on the record as to National Sales Tax.

"Congressman Dipstick, how will this Health Care Reform Plan be paid for?"

"Congressman Dipstick, will you support this "Health Care Reform" if it requires a National Sales Tax to pay for it?"

I support a Natiional Sales Tax if it REPLACES the personal income tax, estate tax, and corporate taxes.

I do not support if it is just another tax in addition to the bad structures we already have.

The Dems seem to think these extra taxes exist in a vacuum, that business owners will not pass them on. Tax the Rich!! (who cares where they get the money to pay) seems to be the rallying cry.

I also heard on Huckabee a Canadian doctor and a Canadian citizen talk about thier health care system. some of the statments:

1. If two Canadians get the same cancer, on average one will die before getting treatment (Government stats cited by he doctor).
2. You have to get into a line to be assigned a doctor, then get into another line to get an appointment from him. It can take as much as 9 months for each line.
3. The citizen had a back problem when she was in her early twenties. Not only could she not get treatment, one doctor told her she hadn't suffered enough, that there were lots of people ahead of her in the line who had suffered longer. She became addicted to morphine while waiting, but at least the government paid for it.
4. her son now has the same condition. She is bringing him to the US for treatment, which she estimates would take 3 years to get in Canada, vs. a couple of weeks here.
5, Canadians who can afford it head south, but the poor and middle classes suffer and sometimes die.

We all agree there is a problem, but this does not seem to be the solution. Why are the Dems pushing so hard? Are they afraid if their reps go home and listen to the people, they may not be so easy to herd?

One last thing. I think every member of Congress and their family should be required to go on the health care system they pass for the rest of us, even if they are rich. Maybe we would see something different then.

(07-18-2009 08:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We all agree there is a problem, but this does not seem to be the solution. Why are the Dems pushing so hard? Are they afraid if their reps go home and listen to the people, they may not be so easy to herd?

One last thing. I think every member of Congress and their family should be required to go on the health care system they pass for the rest of us, even if they are rich. Maybe we would see something different then.

As we speak I'm working on a fundraising effort for a "Call your Congressman" Radio Campaign that will air over the Recess. The BlueDogs will keep this thing bottled up. Polls show that right now 50% of likely voters not in favor of it.

I'm not meaning to split hairs, but that's income tax... not payroll tax.

There is a payroll tax in the plan, but, as I alluded to, that applies for businesses that don't provide health benefits.

(07-18-2009 07:38 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Yes, the House Democrats have now proposed taxing individuals above $280k and families above $350k at least 1% initially, and later at least 2% (up to 5.4%). (Image from New York Times story on 7/14/09.)



Trying to make up a $1 trillion shortfall in funding (over 10 years), by CBO estimates. And it always seems that these estimates (even though the CBO is generally more neutral than most) are more conservative in potential benefits.

[quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='4489476' dateline='1247968381']
I support a Natiional Sales Tax if it REPLACES the personal income tax, estate tax, and corporate taxes.

I do not support if it is just another tax in addition to the bad structures we already have.





Optimistic, you are right on the mark on this one, yet again.
Unfortunately, the plan seems to be to create yet another tax.

Re: Tax the rich. It always seems that taxing the rich never suffices for several reasons. (In addition to the fact that it can be unfair.) First, the rich usually find ways to avoid paying the huge taxes. They spend fortunes on accountants and lawyers who enable them to reduce their tax burden. Second, the government seems to always vastly underestimate the costs of the programs. So there is always a shortfall, and the middle class is left to fill in the gap.

(07-19-2009 09:11 AM)Ranger Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='4489476' dateline='1247968381']
I support a Natiional Sales Tax if it REPLACES the personal income tax, estate tax, and corporate taxes.

I do not support if it is just another tax in addition to the bad structures we already have.





Optimistic, you are right on the mark on this one, yet again.
Unfortunately, the plan seems to be to create yet another tax.

Re: Tax the rich. It always seems that taxing the rich never suffices for several reasons. (In addition to the fact that it can be unfair.) First, the rich usually find ways to avoid paying the huge taxes. They spend fortunes on accountants and lawyers who enable them to reduce their tax burden. Second, the government seems to always vastly underestimate the costs of the programs. So there is always a shortfall, and the middle class is left to fill in the gap.

I'm sure you know how thick Title 26 USC is. Can you imagine how complex a VAT Code would be? In an ideal world, it should apply to all goods and services, and replace title 26. But has the Federal Government ever foreclosed itself from a potential source of income?

(07-19-2009 11:14 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-19-2009 09:11 AM)Ranger Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='4489476' dateline='1247968381']
I support a Natiional Sales Tax if it REPLACES the personal income tax, estate tax, and corporate taxes.

I do not support if it is just another tax in addition to the bad structures we already have.





Optimistic, you are right on the mark on this one, yet again.
Unfortunately, the plan seems to be to create yet another tax.

Re: Tax the rich. It always seems that taxing the rich never suffices for several reasons. (In addition to the fact that it can be unfair.) First, the rich usually find ways to avoid paying the huge taxes. They spend fortunes on accountants and lawyers who enable them to reduce their tax burden. Second, the government seems to always vastly underestimate the costs of the programs. So there is always a shortfall, and the middle class is left to fill in the gap.

I'm sure you know how thick Title 26 USC is. Can you imagine how complex a VAT Code would be? In an ideal world, it should apply to all goods and services, and replace title 26. But has the Federal Government ever foreclosed itself from a potential source of income?

Should 5 per cent (left to the taxpayer) appear to small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
Cause I'm the taxman.

Beatles - Taxman

(07-19-2009 11:14 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-19-2009 09:11 AM)Ranger Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='4489476' dateline='1247968381']
I support a Natiional Sales Tax if it REPLACES the personal income tax, estate tax, and corporate taxes.

I do not support if it is just another tax in addition to the bad structures we already have.





Optimistic, you are right on the mark on this one, yet again.
Unfortunately, the plan seems to be to create yet another tax.

Re: Tax the rich. It always seems that taxing the rich never suffices for several reasons. (In addition to the fact that it can be unfair.) First, the rich usually find ways to avoid paying the huge taxes. They spend fortunes on accountants and lawyers who enable them to reduce their tax burden. Second, the government seems to always vastly underestimate the costs of the programs. So there is always a shortfall, and the middle class is left to fill in the gap.

I'm sure you know how thick Title 26 USC is. Can you imagine how complex a VAT Code would be? In an ideal world, it should apply to all goods and services, and replace title 26. But has the Federal Government ever foreclosed itself from a potential source of income?

Personally. I support a National Sales Tax, not a VAT. The sales tax would be collected once, at the point of sale to the ultimate consumer. A VAT is collected at each stage, passed on and rebated at each subsequent stage, adding immensely to its complexity. A sales tax is similar to what we have in Texas now. A VAT is what they have in mexico. My mexican suppliers were always short of money at one point of the year as they waited for the annual rebate of the VAT they had paid to be refunded on their exports.

A national sales tax would be more fair and more efficient, but it should be enacted only if it replaces the current unfair and inefficient tax forms we have now. To add another tax form side by side with the current ones means that once again fairness has been abandoned in favor of fundraising and class warfare.

I read an interesting interview in one of the London papers last Sunday.

The interview was with a former bank CEO who is now one of Gordon Brown's "old goats" (leaders of industry that he has brought in as advisers under a program called "Government Of All Talents"). He stressed very strongly that UK, and indeed all of EU, saw the growth of export sales as the way out of this financial downturn. That is striking because it is 180 degrees out from the US approach of stimulating consumption, even when a large part of that consumption is buying goods imported from China (or somewhere else outside the US).

I think stimulating exports is where we ABSOLUTELY MUST go to find a long-term fix. I do not see anything in any of Obama's proposals that will have any impact on export sales except to decrease them. If someone has a different opinioin, please comment.

I don't think this problem started with Obama. The decline of our manufacturing base has been going on since the 1960s. Perot correctly (IMO) pointed out in 1992 that the guy who worked in a steel mill in the 1950s has a son delivering pizzas in the 1990s, and you can't pay someone as much to deliver pizzas as you can to run a steel mill. This retail/service economy can't work forever. We are shipping all our wealth overseas to pay for imports. Obama's plans will make ths situation worse, not better.

(07-19-2009 12:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-19-2009 11:14 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(07-19-2009 09:11 AM)Ranger Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='4489476' dateline='1247968381']
I support a Natiional Sales Tax if it REPLACES the personal income tax, estate tax, and corporate taxes.

I do not support if it is just another tax in addition to the bad structures we already have.





Optimistic, you are right on the mark on this one, yet again.
Unfortunately, the plan seems to be to create yet another tax.

Re: Tax the rich. It always seems that taxing the rich never suffices for several reasons. (In addition to the fact that it can be unfair.) First, the rich usually find ways to avoid paying the huge taxes. They spend fortunes on accountants and lawyers who enable them to reduce their tax burden. Second, the government seems to always vastly underestimate the costs of the programs. So there is always a shortfall, and the middle class is left to fill in the gap.

I'm sure you know how thick Title 26 USC is. Can you imagine how complex a VAT Code would be? In an ideal world, it should apply to all goods and services, and replace title 26. But has the Federal Government ever foreclosed itself from a potential source of income?

Personally. I support a National Sales Tax, not a VAT. The sales tax would be collected once, at the point of sale to the ultimate consumer. A VAT is collected at each stage, passed on and rebated at each subsequent stage, adding immensely to its complexity. A sales tax is similar to what we have in Texas now. A VAT is what they have in mexico. My mexican suppliers were always short of money at one point of the year as they waited for the annual rebate of the VAT they had paid to be refunded on their exports.

A national sales tax would be more fair and more efficient, but it should be enacted only if it replaces the current unfair and inefficient tax forms we have now. To add another tax form side by side with the current ones means that once again fairness has been abandoned in favor of fundraising and class warfare.

Last week I read a quip about the VAT that I thought was pretty good:

VAT has never gotten any traction in the US for this reason: the liberals oppose it because it is essentially regressive, and the conservatives oppose it because it is a revenue machine for government. The VAT will be adopted as soon as the conservatives figure out that it's regressive, and the liberals figure out that it's a revenue machine.

It strikes me that the quip is slightly unfair to conservatives, but otherwise spot-on.

As for the VAT replacing rather than adding to existing taxes: however devoutly it might be wished, I'd say the chance of the political class agreeing to abolish existing revenue streams is that of a snowball in Hell.

As far as I know, the only significant such instance in U.S. history was when the framers of the Constitution decided to prohibit duties on exports (Article 1, section 9, clause 5). But it goes without saying that the Constitutional Convention was a rare political process, and the framers were a rare breed of politicians.