Gas prices going up and the dollar getting killed.
Damnitt I'm tired of Bush screwing us like this. :shrug:
Damnitt I'm tired of Bush screwing us like this. :shrug:
Gas prices and value of dollar
- Thread starter layinwood
- Start date
Great point. Time for Obama to step in. You all saw what gas prices did to the economy when Bush let them run wild. Time for Obama to show us what he is made of.
Well, as long as we all follow that "I'll drive a gas guzzler until I die" mentality and not ask more from ourselves in reducing consumption and actively looking for ways to make non-oil based energy more attractive to business, we'll be fine. If all else fails, we can take over Iran soon and liberate those folks, which should give us all the oil we need for a long time. Or at least the oil companies will have all they need - whether they choose to reduce our cost or not is up to them. I'm sure they'll look out for us first, right? Didn't they the last time this happened?
Hey, at least I only have to drive to work two days a week now, and I can take online college courses to hopefully teach and coach in my home town some day, so the returning high gas prices aren't such a big deal to me, either. Ironic - I have to lose income to save a little money.
Hey, at least I only have to drive to work two days a week now, and I can take online college courses to hopefully teach and coach in my home town some day, so the returning high gas prices aren't such a big deal to me, either. Ironic - I have to lose income to save a little money.
Hmmm have you heard what liberals their discussing now--I like their arguement--Europe lives with $6 and $7 a fuel and if gas is cheap it encourages us to waste our money on other things--love these liberals 
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/would-carbon-tax-make-higher-gasoline.html
--addition to being urged to tax carbon directly, President Obama has also been urged by the New York Times editorial board and others to adopt steeper taxes on gasoline. In contrast, Matt Yglesias of the Center for American Progress and others argue that a carbon tax (or a carbon cap and trade system) would make higher gasoline taxes redundant. But limiting greenhouse gases is not the only, or even the most important, reason for taxing gasoline more heavily. Gasoline taxes are required not just to discourage carbon emissions, but also to limit many other costs that gasoline consumption imposes on others.<!--EndFragment-->
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>
Selling carbon permits and levying higher taxes on gasoline will also generate billions of dollars of additional federal revenue. Unlike the taxes that conservatives bemoan, these taxes will make the economy more efficient, not less. But because they will raise the prices of basic commodities, they will also cause distress for at least some low-income families. The traditional remedy has been to return some or all of the tax revenue by reducing the payroll tax, which falls disproportionately on low-income workers. There is, however, a far more effective way of reducing the burden on the poor. More on that in a moment.<O></O>
<O></O>
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that a CO<SUB>2</SUB> tax of approximately $80 per ton might be necessary by 2030 to reduce emissions by enough to achieve global climate stability by the year 2100. A CO<SUB>2 </SUB>tax set at that level would add about 70 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline. But that tax would attack only one of a long list of external costs associated with additional consumption of gasoline.<O></O>
<O></O>
Most gasoline is used to power cars and trucks. When people drive more, they cause additional traffic congestion, which imposes costly delays on others; they generate additional urban smog, which causes increased mortality and morbidity; they generate additional noise; they increase the risk that others will die in accidents; they increase the cost of road maintenance; they send money to petro-dictatorships that support terrorists; and they increase the risk of military conflicts to preserve access to foreign oil. <O></O>
<O></O>
Beyond imposing these direct costs on others, low gasoline prices also contribute to various indirect forms of waste. For example, they foster urban sprawl, which increases all forms of energy use. <O></O>
<O></O>
Cheap gasoline also encourages consumers to spend in mutually offsetting, wasteful ways. One strategy for reducing one?s risk of dying in a head on collision, for instance, is to buy a heavier vehicle. But when all follow that strategy, everyone?s risk of dying actually rises. Low gasoline prices also encourage wasteful horsepower arms races. Many people like fast cars, but how fast a car must be to provide that satisfaction depends on context. A car that is experienced subjectively as fast is simply one that accelerates more briskly than other cars in the same local environment. So when all purchase cars with more powerful engines, the same car that once seemed fast no longer does. <O></O>
<O></O>
No one knows exactly how high gasoline taxes would have to be to induce consumers to take full account of such external costs. But trans-national experience suggests that gasoline consumption would remain inefficiently high even if taxes were $2 per gallon higher than current levels. Gas taxes are more than that much higher in Europe, where consumers have responded by buying much lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles than in the United States. There is no evidence that Europeans are less satisfied with their cars than Americans are, or that European tax levels have fully neutralized all the negative externalities associated with gasoline consumption.<O></O>
<O></O>
When large gasoline tax increases have been proposed in the past, the tradition has been to propose a simultaneous reduction in the payroll tax, thereby to curb the economic hardships imposed by the tax. But such hardships are likely to be smaller than most people expect. And if the aim is to cushion them, there is a much better way to do it. <!--EndFragment-->
<!--StartFragment-->
If the current price of gasoline were $2 per gallon and an additional tax of $2 per gallon were added, how would that affect the typical family? On average, an American family of four currently consumes almost 2,000 gallons of gasoline annually. A family that continued to consume at the same rate after the imposition of the tax would thus pay $4,000 in additional gasoline taxes annually. But if the family was about to replace its aging Ford Explorer, which gets 15 miles per gallon, it could buy Ford?s Edge wagon, which has almost as much cargo capacity as the Explorer and gets more than 30 miles per gallon. If it made the switch, its annual fuel costs would remain the same as before, even if it drove just much as it used to. And if other families adjusted in similar ways, none would feel disadvantaged by driving a smaller vehicle; and none would be at greater risk from dying in a head-on collision. <O></O>
<O></O>
From the experience of the 1970s, we know that consumers respond to higher gasoline prices not just by buying more efficient cars, but also by taking fewer trips, forming carpools and moving closer to work. If norms shifted in those ways, a family might actually find itself with greater disposable income because of the higher gas tax.<O></O>
<O></O>
Inevitably, however, some families would be unable adjust their consumption patterns, and these families would pay a price. But trying to compensate them by reducing the payroll tax would be extremely inefficient. For one thing, payroll tax reductions would not help retirees or those who are unemployed. For another, they would transfer money not just to low-income workers, but also to those already earning high incomes. Even more troubling, a payroll tax reduction would quickly become invisible. In contrast, the gasoline tax would remain salient and would continue to draw political fire.<O></O>
<O></O>
As the political scientist Steve Teles has suggested, a much better approach would be to return some portion of the additional revenue in the form of a yearly rebate check from the IRS issued to every family that files a tax return. Scheduled to arrive in early December, it would provide a vivid reminder of the offset against the additional taxes. The size of the rebate could also be inversely related to the family?s income, the better to target relief for those most in need.<O></O>
<O></O>
Because gasoline consumption generates many external costs besides global warming, carbon taxes do not eliminate the rationale for imposing additional taxes on gasoline. By encouraging consumers to take account of those external costs, such taxes would make the economy more efficient. Evidence suggests, moreover, that people have wide latitude to escape the burden of higher energy taxes by changing their behavior. The taxes would create far less hardship than many expect, and such hardship as they would create could be easily remedied.<!--EndFragment-->
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/would-carbon-tax-make-higher-gasoline.html
--addition to being urged to tax carbon directly, President Obama has also been urged by the New York Times editorial board and others to adopt steeper taxes on gasoline. In contrast, Matt Yglesias of the Center for American Progress and others argue that a carbon tax (or a carbon cap and trade system) would make higher gasoline taxes redundant. But limiting greenhouse gases is not the only, or even the most important, reason for taxing gasoline more heavily. Gasoline taxes are required not just to discourage carbon emissions, but also to limit many other costs that gasoline consumption imposes on others.<!--EndFragment-->
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O
></O>Selling carbon permits and levying higher taxes on gasoline will also generate billions of dollars of additional federal revenue. Unlike the taxes that conservatives bemoan, these taxes will make the economy more efficient, not less. But because they will raise the prices of basic commodities, they will also cause distress for at least some low-income families. The traditional remedy has been to return some or all of the tax revenue by reducing the payroll tax, which falls disproportionately on low-income workers. There is, however, a far more effective way of reducing the burden on the poor. More on that in a moment.<O
></O><O
></O>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that a CO<SUB>2</SUB> tax of approximately $80 per ton might be necessary by 2030 to reduce emissions by enough to achieve global climate stability by the year 2100. A CO<SUB>2 </SUB>tax set at that level would add about 70 cents to the price of a gallon of gasoline. But that tax would attack only one of a long list of external costs associated with additional consumption of gasoline.<O
></O><O
></O>Most gasoline is used to power cars and trucks. When people drive more, they cause additional traffic congestion, which imposes costly delays on others; they generate additional urban smog, which causes increased mortality and morbidity; they generate additional noise; they increase the risk that others will die in accidents; they increase the cost of road maintenance; they send money to petro-dictatorships that support terrorists; and they increase the risk of military conflicts to preserve access to foreign oil. <O
></O><O
></O>Beyond imposing these direct costs on others, low gasoline prices also contribute to various indirect forms of waste. For example, they foster urban sprawl, which increases all forms of energy use. <O
></O><O
></O>Cheap gasoline also encourages consumers to spend in mutually offsetting, wasteful ways. One strategy for reducing one?s risk of dying in a head on collision, for instance, is to buy a heavier vehicle. But when all follow that strategy, everyone?s risk of dying actually rises. Low gasoline prices also encourage wasteful horsepower arms races. Many people like fast cars, but how fast a car must be to provide that satisfaction depends on context. A car that is experienced subjectively as fast is simply one that accelerates more briskly than other cars in the same local environment. So when all purchase cars with more powerful engines, the same car that once seemed fast no longer does. <O
></O><O
></O>No one knows exactly how high gasoline taxes would have to be to induce consumers to take full account of such external costs. But trans-national experience suggests that gasoline consumption would remain inefficiently high even if taxes were $2 per gallon higher than current levels. Gas taxes are more than that much higher in Europe, where consumers have responded by buying much lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles than in the United States. There is no evidence that Europeans are less satisfied with their cars than Americans are, or that European tax levels have fully neutralized all the negative externalities associated with gasoline consumption.<O
></O><O
></O>When large gasoline tax increases have been proposed in the past, the tradition has been to propose a simultaneous reduction in the payroll tax, thereby to curb the economic hardships imposed by the tax. But such hardships are likely to be smaller than most people expect. And if the aim is to cushion them, there is a much better way to do it. <!--EndFragment-->
<!--StartFragment-->
If the current price of gasoline were $2 per gallon and an additional tax of $2 per gallon were added, how would that affect the typical family? On average, an American family of four currently consumes almost 2,000 gallons of gasoline annually. A family that continued to consume at the same rate after the imposition of the tax would thus pay $4,000 in additional gasoline taxes annually. But if the family was about to replace its aging Ford Explorer, which gets 15 miles per gallon, it could buy Ford?s Edge wagon, which has almost as much cargo capacity as the Explorer and gets more than 30 miles per gallon. If it made the switch, its annual fuel costs would remain the same as before, even if it drove just much as it used to. And if other families adjusted in similar ways, none would feel disadvantaged by driving a smaller vehicle; and none would be at greater risk from dying in a head-on collision. <O
></O><O
></O>From the experience of the 1970s, we know that consumers respond to higher gasoline prices not just by buying more efficient cars, but also by taking fewer trips, forming carpools and moving closer to work. If norms shifted in those ways, a family might actually find itself with greater disposable income because of the higher gas tax.<O
></O><O
></O>Inevitably, however, some families would be unable adjust their consumption patterns, and these families would pay a price. But trying to compensate them by reducing the payroll tax would be extremely inefficient. For one thing, payroll tax reductions would not help retirees or those who are unemployed. For another, they would transfer money not just to low-income workers, but also to those already earning high incomes. Even more troubling, a payroll tax reduction would quickly become invisible. In contrast, the gasoline tax would remain salient and would continue to draw political fire.<O
></O><O
></O>As the political scientist Steve Teles has suggested, a much better approach would be to return some portion of the additional revenue in the form of a yearly rebate check from the IRS issued to every family that files a tax return. Scheduled to arrive in early December, it would provide a vivid reminder of the offset against the additional taxes. The size of the rebate could also be inversely related to the family?s income, the better to target relief for those most in need.<O
></O><O
></O>Because gasoline consumption generates many external costs besides global warming, carbon taxes do not eliminate the rationale for imposing additional taxes on gasoline. By encouraging consumers to take account of those external costs, such taxes would make the economy more efficient. Evidence suggests, moreover, that people have wide latitude to escape the burden of higher energy taxes by changing their behavior. The taxes would create far less hardship than many expect, and such hardship as they would create could be easily remedied.<!--EndFragment-->
OK--now that I got you a little pissed lets see if I can get even the most ardant liberals "at least" 2nd guessing
How about this litte federal sales tax called VAT they are working on--you WILL be hearing more on this. Basically a sales tax on everything-and they are talking about 10 to 25%.
Yep free healthcare-free education--free welfare no taxes on anyone under $250,000
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform
[SIZE=-1]By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
[/SIZE]
With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.
At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.
"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."
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. 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.
Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.
A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.
"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."
Seeking New Revenue
The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.
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.
Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.
Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.
Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.
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.
A VAT's Bottom Line
What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.
And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.
Sales Tax Gains Momentum
Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.
Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.
"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz 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."
Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.
Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.
Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."
How about this litte federal sales tax called VAT they are working on--you WILL be hearing more on this. Basically a sales tax on everything-and they are talking about 10 to 25%.
Yep free healthcare-free education--free welfare no taxes on anyone under $250,000
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform
[SIZE=-1]By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
[/SIZE]
With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.
Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.
At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.
"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."
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. 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.
Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.
A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.
Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.
"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."
Seeking New Revenue
The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.
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.
Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.
Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.
Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.
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.
A VAT's Bottom Line
What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.
And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.
Sales Tax Gains Momentum
Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.
Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.
"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz 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."
Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.
Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.
Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."
In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.
And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.
Interesting. I have no idea if that's true, but if so, it's an interesting thought. A stabilized debt, meaning 1/3 of our tax dollars no longer go to paying national debt interest, everyone pays less in income tax, including the wealthiest, everyone has health insurance so the uninsured will now be paid for in a different way other than the way we all pay for it now, and those that want to buy things can, and will pay a little more. I understand it might be regressive to purchasing in a sense, but it might lead to tax reform and a more flat rate system that seems to be more fair for all. Everyone seems to dance around that one, but nobody will jump on board - ESPECIALLY the upper income earners, who scream for fairness.
I don't know if it is a good idea or not, but I think we have to be open to ideas. I would agree that the government and administration has to stop spending money, and printing more to accomplish that, if we consider anything new. But, the status quo was not working before, either. I don't have the answers, but I'm open to new ideas.
And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.
Interesting. I have no idea if that's true, but if so, it's an interesting thought. A stabilized debt, meaning 1/3 of our tax dollars no longer go to paying national debt interest, everyone pays less in income tax, including the wealthiest, everyone has health insurance so the uninsured will now be paid for in a different way other than the way we all pay for it now, and those that want to buy things can, and will pay a little more. I understand it might be regressive to purchasing in a sense, but it might lead to tax reform and a more flat rate system that seems to be more fair for all. Everyone seems to dance around that one, but nobody will jump on board - ESPECIALLY the upper income earners, who scream for fairness.
I don't know if it is a good idea or not, but I think we have to be open to ideas. I would agree that the government and administration has to stop spending money, and printing more to accomplish that, if we consider anything new. But, the status quo was not working before, either. I don't have the answers, but I'm open to new ideas.
I try to look at it from simplest perspective Chad--with out all these PH'Ds hypothetical spin.
I ask myself--
--how will the spending more on gas (gas tax)
--have after tax take home pay cut 10 to 25% (VAT tax)
--have untilty bills increase 50% (carbon tax)
--make my life better?
---and at what point will liberals come to same conclusion--
--when will they have that- Tony Robbins buyers remorse and figure out that the guy who "promised" literally -that no one making less than $250,000 would have one dime in tax increase--has duped them once again.
--or will they say--Hey if my party says these taxes good for me --then if they double anticipated taxes it will be twice as good.
I ask myself--
--how will the spending more on gas (gas tax)
--have after tax take home pay cut 10 to 25% (VAT tax)
--have untilty bills increase 50% (carbon tax)
--make my life better?
---and at what point will liberals come to same conclusion--
--when will they have that- Tony Robbins buyers remorse and figure out that the guy who "promised" literally -that no one making less than $250,000 would have one dime in tax increase--has duped them once again.
--or will they say--Hey if my party says these taxes good for me --then if they double anticipated taxes it will be twice as good.
Obama is just as full of it as his predecessors. He was not the candidate of change in the past election. It is business as usual in DC. O spoke on the urgency of getting the stimulus signed, but to date even liberals claim only 6% has been tapped.
Unfortunately, most O detractors do not look at his actual drawbacks or mistakes, they only speak on trivialities and falsehoods such as his reliance on a teleprompter, or his supposed Indonesian citizenship, or his alleged ties to islamic radicalism. Those kooks are doing us an injustice. The opossition to O needs to get their collective head out of their ass and start talking facts. Wake up, people!!!
Ron Paul in 2012:00hour
Anyone that owns a Gas Guzzler already pays for it when they fill their Gas tank, they pay more GAS TAX, maybe LIBERALS should mind their own Business. JMHO.
:nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
:thefinger
:nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
:thefinger
We cannot last if we go on like we did the last 8 years. Obama has to change things. A gas tax is much different than Oil companies making record profits at the expense of the American Public. That being said I am still waiting for Obama to reel them in.
I don't what it will take Cie--
I can't believe folks that that will throw out all common sense in favor of being PC.
Heres perfect example of what I'm talking about.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...40ft-wind-turbine-driving-neighbours-mad.html
For those that don't want to read I can sum it up this way--
Guy and wife spend 20,000 for wind turbine that saves them $500 a year --and made so much noise-city shut it down--they appealed and court fees cost em another 5,000 and change.
When they left court they could heard jabbering-
-fck all those illiterate-redneck hill billy's who don't know shit.
--now to counter this PC greenie
--Common sense tell this ole conservative illiterate redneck hillbilly that it will take 40 years to break even--and if I want to gain $500 a year would only take 2.5% simple interest on 20,000 and I keep the 20,000.
When they left court they could heard jabbering-
-fck all those illiterate-redneck hill billy's who don't know shit.
.
I laughed heartily. Nice use of the bold feature!!!
The W detractors never got their heads out of their asses to provide legit, effective opposition, why do you think the Obama detractors would be any differemt? Same goes for the sheeple who follow both blindly, if you know what I mean.
We're in a soundbite vs soundbite world. Facts and legit discourse need not apply. Unless those facts are written by lobbyists donating to our party, of course.
Hope all is well, Cie. 100 days to go. :toast:
The sheep on either side are killing us, but it may not last forever. People can, and sometimes do, change. I know that I came out of college a raging republican, but in 10 years I've morphed into a better, more reasonable man. Who knows, the time might come where those who oppose both major parties will be the majority:shrug:
Best to ya', sir:toast:
