Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer – Wed Apr 21, 7:14 pm ET
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.
First we will probbaly see some kind of phoney deficit commission where the libs will out weigh the republicans and they will say "We need this to tax so we can bring down the deficit. " If the Republicans dont win back one of the houses you can bet that we will see this in our future. We will be taxed anywhere from 15 -25% on goods.
The UK and most of Europe already have this and they have deficits as high as the stratosphere and it hasn't done a damn thing bcos the politicians spend the money.
So if anybody actually thinks that Obama would say "Now that we have this we can start paying down the debt you're NUTS. He will say "Now we can do more!" If he's willing to run up deficits into the trillions it won't slow him down or this congress for that matter, it will get much worse
These kind of TAX increases are nothing short of an attack on our liberties and does nothing but empower the GOV to do more against our interest and against our will.
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.
First we will probbaly see some kind of phoney deficit commission where the libs will out weigh the republicans and they will say "We need this to tax so we can bring down the deficit. " If the Republicans dont win back one of the houses you can bet that we will see this in our future. We will be taxed anywhere from 15 -25% on goods.
The UK and most of Europe already have this and they have deficits as high as the stratosphere and it hasn't done a damn thing bcos the politicians spend the money.
So if anybody actually thinks that Obama would say "Now that we have this we can start paying down the debt you're NUTS. He will say "Now we can do more!" If he's willing to run up deficits into the trillions it won't slow him down or this congress for that matter, it will get much worse
These kind of TAX increases are nothing short of an attack on our liberties and does nothing but empower the GOV to do more against our interest and against our will.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
you make it sound like the dems are out to get YOU and destroy our country. by saying there will be more libs than republicans you act like that is shocking. when there is a commission the party in the majprity has more seats on the committee. DUH... do you really think the dems are gonna say "ok you republicans have fought us every step of the way on every idea we have had, so we are going to reward you for it by giving you a majority on this deficit commission..." Can we pretend to live in REALITY for maybe five minutes?? truth is, there are very few libs in the congress. there is a democtatic majority, but most of them are NOT liberals....
why are some of you people taking EVERYTHING as a swipe at your liberties? when bush was in office i did not get my way one time, so i think you all are more about sour grapes than actual attacks on your liberties....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
These types of taxes are outrageous, and they are an attack on our liberties, like it or not.
Huh ?? can you please explain this to me cos they sure as hell are'nt conservatives. And there are no more moderate democrats. The democratic party has been hijacked by the far left. Either you are republican or an Obama democrat.
Because IMO they are,and so are some of the republicans.
It's all about control over our lives and it amazes me that you and others don't see this for what it is.
Well what would you call it then?
Obama 's agenda is antithetical to our constituion and he's destroying the private sector at every turn.
Im not generalizing anything. I was simply pointing out why the vat tax wouldn't do a damn thing, and the politicians would just spend it like they have been,almost everthing this president ,past presidents and congress have done are short sighted and yet the consequences are long term.
And if politicians are getting creative with taxes, well they pretty much have to. If you're such fans of balanced budgets, increasing taxes somehow has to be part of the package in any real life scenario, to reduce the deficit. Or is the TAX CUT mantra overriding every other concern? But that is what you'll get. We have had a few decades with cutting in the public sector and privatizing public institutions. Our taxes may be a bot lower, but instead we pay fees for a lot of things we didn't use to.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, just different ways to divide up the bill.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Cut spending.
It's that simple.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I wish it were that simple,but we do have to pay some taxes. Just wait untill the Bush Tax cuts expire next year and when Obama care goes into overdrive I think a lot of people are going to get real wake up call.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Report ... -Taxpayers
here is the thing, no you don't HAVE to raise taxes. You can spend less money. These types of taxes always start with best intentions, like the VAT will reduce the deficit. In a few years congress will see how much money comes in because of it and start spending the money on other things than it was originally designed for. Seriously, raising taxes is not the way to balance a budget, it is the way spend more money and still be in a deficit.
Now if they came out and said we are going to have a 10% national sales tax that is only going to the national debt, and can NEVER be used for anything else, it makes sense. It sucks and I wouldn't want it, but at least it would be serving a purpose and not giving the government more money for bridges to nowhere without cutting spending.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
point one: you are implying that the majority of the dems in congress are liberal?? LOL please, you forgot about the whole faction of blue dogs, and do not forget the ones that oppose abortion and the health care bill. if the majority of them were liberals we would have gotten single payor instead of the compromised compromised version we got passed. you say obama is a liberal, he is more moderate in my eyes, as are most of the dems that you call liberal. frank, kucinish, sanders are the only unabashed liberals i see in the congress...
point two: so because it is your opinion that the dems and some of the gop are out to destroy the country it must be true. give me a break man...your views must carry a lot of weight, enough to distort the entire reality for the rest of us. because you choose to be irrational and paranoid do not try to make me feel bad for not feeling the same as you or holding the same opinions..
and point 3, plese give me examples of how "obama's agenda is antithetical to our constitution", and no blog posts please. i want hard news and hard evidence please. what part of the private sector has been destroyed? the auto industry? he saved them. gm just paid back $8 billion this week. the wall street bankers? it was either that or let the entire financial system fail, worse than the great depression. please give us examples if you are going to make such outrageous claims...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"With our thoughts we make the world"
The problem I think we have here is the business VAT. As I'm VAT registered I have to invoice all my customers with 17.5% VAT added. The stupid thing is if they are VAT registered they then claim it back. I pay the VAT guys the VAT I have received and then they give it back to them. Ridiculous! I believe in the UK if your VAT registered and have to invoice a VAT registered business you shouldn't have to add VAT. That's where the system becomes stupid and I imagine will frustrate Americans if a similar system comes into being.
I am worried about the day I get a letter from various state governments to pay in for all the items I've bought on Amazon.
This is fairly on point,
but i think the truths to remember at this stage in the game are as follows:
The "Banksters" have PLENTY of money.
All the money in the world really.
They are nothing more than a front piece for a giant interlaced network of "co-conspirators".
The actual game plan in play here (at least, if you ask me, and from my own research) at this point in the "game" is two fold:
a. Cause the citizens of the United States (and of the world at large) to become so utterly disenchanted with the monetary system, by placing deliberate and uanvoidable blame (even to the average mindless idiot everyman) square upon the bankers (who represent just a small subsection of the actual elite "controllers"), that the people themselves start clamoring for "change", thus making it much easier for those at fault (and in control) to propose their own "solution" to the "problem" ... a solution that will probably take shape in some form of new currency, phase out of cash \ transition to cashless society, global or regionalized currency, or other massive restructuring of the global monetary order ... but probably done in a gradual process, so as not to freak out the "plebs". This has already begun with the re-implementation of Special Drawing Rights!
b. Cause massive disenfranchisement within the United States between the citizens and their "own" government, and cause even more disturbances between the United States and the rest of the world thus setting up the stage for a "global resolution\arbitration process" whereby the citizens of this country, and of the rest of the world are led to believe that their grievances against America are being resolved by the process of essentially dismantling the US as a sovereign entity, and folding it back in to the broader world order as some sort of piece of a larger "Union". (or alternatively, they may opt to create some massive global crisis, with the United States rigged up as the "leader" in the "response", to help engender world support behind the United States as the leader in the formation of the aforementioned larger "union") This whole process is obviously a sketchy one, in need of some deliberately instigated crisis MUCH larger than 9/11, and will STILL need more wings, prayers, and time to be thrown over on the citizens of this country than probably even their best effort stands a chance of "winning".
Obviously i'm dubious of any such efforts, but i fully believe this is what will be attempted. At least in part, and over some broad course of time.
They've got a couple of "no duh" cards they could play:
*some sort of "war" with Iran
*some sort of civil disorder instigated by a black president perceived as a massive threat to "white sovereignty" by the racially resentful, sending the country in to a racially motivated civil war
*some sort of massive terrorist event or natural disaster combined with a botched response effort
*a further escalation of the "global economic crisis"
*some sort of "gas crisis" ... Unleaded is already back to just shy of $3.00\g on the East Coast.
SORRY IF I DRAGGED THIS OFF TOPIC, PRFCTLFTS.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well, the way it works here, is that if they are production means that go to make something, you don't add VAT, at least if both parties are registered companies in the VAT registry. The principle is that VAT is to be applied only once in the production chain, and that's the final leg out to the consumer. I have my own little registered company, and the way it's done is that I keep records of VAT I have taken in from others. But when I pay them in, I deduct VAT that has been applied to anything I have bought for business purposes, and pay the difference.
Anywho.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You CAN spend less money, certainly. The question is whether you will, and whether that is really wanted by the public when push comes to shove. It's easy to agree that "Oh yes, we must spend less money", the tough part is saying where to spend less. Schools? Military? Health? Pensions? For any of these a sizable portion of the public will take to the streets in a "hell, no!" if any real cuts were implemented. The public wants functioning schools, a decent military, good health measures for most/all and so forth. So the CAN in this sense can be likened to "you CAN live without a house", "you CAN live on stuff you find in a dumpster". Most people won't agree to that, and will push and punish politicians that vote against any of that.
You can save some money through organizing some of the tasks better perhaps, and cut a few not-too-popular programs and push for efficiency, but as it seems to me, there is no real way you can get through this without increasing the tax base somehow. For best effect, you should do both. Squeeze parts of the budget some, and add income in some way. Tax cuts is off the table for a decade at least. Any increased efficiency or saving should go towards closing the deficit gap. So if you want to quickly get it out of the way, well, it's taxes somehow.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Peace to you too Dan.