« First « Previous Comments 6 - 27 of 27 Search these comments
Good luck selling 42% to the voters.
I'd like to see all Democrats run on this platform.
mell saysDepending on in which state you are in the US and even which municipality you have all sorts of VATs already here which amount easily to to double digits. For example in CA you have sales tax
Sales taxes and fees are not VATs. A VAT is added at each stage of production, with the next producer deducting what VAT it paid the previous supplier. This is how the tax at such high rates can be collected and not just for goods but services too. Sales taxes are only applied at POS and only on goods. VATs get paid whether the the final sale to the consumer happens or not.
This is why VATs are real popular for third world governments that otherwise can not tax income or sales taxes effectively. Like the Philippines.
If Trump were smart he’d get behind a public option like Medicare on the condition of more border security including mandatory e-verify, entry / exit visa tracking, and banning of sanctuary cities.
The first time was when Reagan agreed on amnesty in exchange for "more borders security" and the rest of that jazz above.
OccasionalCortex saysmell saysDepending on in which state you are in the US and even which municipality you have all sorts of VATs already here which amount easily to to double digits. For example in CA you have sales tax
Sales taxes and fees are not VATs. A VAT is added at each stage of production, with the next producer deducting what VAT it paid the previous supplier. This is how the tax at such high rates can be collected and not just for goods but services too. Sales taxes are only applied at POS and only on goods. VATs get paid whether the the final sale to the consumer happens or not.
This is why VATs are real popular for third world governments that otherwise can not tax income or sales taxes effectively. Like the Philippines.
It works well in Europe of which quite a few countries hav...
Which is why border security needs to come first or at the same time.
mell saysOccasionalCortex saysmell saysDepending on in which state you are in the US and even which municipality you have all sorts of VATs already here which amount easily to to double digits. For example in CA you have sales tax
Sales taxes and fees are not VATs. A VAT is added at each stage of production, with the next producer deducting what VAT it paid the previous supplier. This is how the tax at such high rates can be collected and not just for goods but services too. Sales taxes are only applied at POS and only on goods. VATs get paid whether the the final sale to the consumer happens or not.
This is why VATs are real popular for third world governments that otherwise can not tax income or sales taxes effectively. Like the Philippine...
Agreed - goes hand in hand with border safety. But Europe has larger immigration issues than the US.
OccasionalCortex saysmell saysIt works well in Europe of which quite a few countries have a higher average standard of living than the US.
Not really:
As a quick caveat, it’s worth noting that there’s not a one-to-one link between gross domestic product and actual living standards. Some of the economic activity in energy-rich states such as North Dakota, for instance, translates into income for shareholders living elsewhere in America.
But if you look at the US average ($54,629), it obviously is higher than economic output in European nations. And if you prefer direct measures of living standards, then data on consumption from the OECD also shows that America is considerably more prosperous.
Upshot...
GDP doesn't correlate that well with standard of living. Neither does data for consumption, the US are consumption addicts which is in fact detrimental. The US has many upsides such as very much individual liberty but it also has a lot of shithole regions and cities. I would put Germany - even with the current rapefugees - and Switzerland easily over 90% of the US in terms of standard of living. Of course it is difficult to compare such a large country with smaller countries (Germany is pretty large though). I don't care about a pissing match between Europe and the US both continents have much to offer but the VAT is certainly not a problem for Europe, the rapefugees are the problem.
mell saysI would put Germany - even with the current rapefugees - and Switzerland easily over 90% of the US in terms of standard of living.
That is cherrypicking your data to make a false broad-based point about the US in total.
mell saysGDP doesn't correlate that well with standard of living. Neither does data for consumption,
Yes, both do.
mell saysthe US are consumption addicts which is in fact detrimental.
That is opinionated spin, not fact.
mell saysI would put Germany - even with the current rapefugees - and Switzerland easily over 90% of the US in terms of standard of living.
That is cherrypicking your data to make a false broad-based point about the US in total.
OccasionalCortex saysmell saysI would put Germany - even with the current rapefugees - and Switzerland easily over 90% of the US in terms of standard of living.
That is cherrypicking your data to make a false broad-based point about the US in total.
Don't forget, Germany has legal FKK clubs
This can easily enhance any guy's standard of living.
I'd rather make $55k in Oregon or $57k in Nebraska than $67k in Mass or NY.
Far cheaper on most things.
Here's Worcester, MA's #2 city, compared to Nebraska City, Nebraska's #2 city.
Comparable Homes are half the price.
https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/worcester-ma/nebraska-city-ne/67000
Here's Worcester, MA's #2 city, compared to Nebraska City, Nebraska's #2 city.
Hardly. Lincoln is the second largest Nebraska city behind Omaha. Unlike both Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska City is a rural area with a distinct farm town mentality. Omaha is only a hours drive away, though, and has some good big city amenities. My brother in law is a dentist in Nebraska City, I know the town well.
Supporters of Medicare for All, the huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone. Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much tax revenue as the government brings in now. So if paid for through new taxes, federal taxation would have to roughly double.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has done voters a favor by spelling out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money. Warren justifies many of her programs by saying all it would take is “two cents” from the wealthy. That’s a reference to her 2% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires. But Medicare for All would be so expensive that if you taxed top earners at 100%—that’s right, if you took all the income of couples earning more than $408,000 per year—you’d still fall far short. And everybody getting taxed at 100% would obviously stop working.
Okay, that won’t do it. So what will? CRFB outlined a variety of options. A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. But it would destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.
Warren, Sanders and others tout the virtues of this magical health care program without explaining what it would cost. Sanders has at least suggested some possible ways to pay for it, including premiums paid by enrollees, a wealth tax on millionaires and income tax rates as high as 52%. Warren has been cagier, saying only that under her plan “costs” would go down for middle-class families. Under pressure to explain, Warren has pledged to come up with a financing plan soon. Now, maybe she doesn’t have to.