covert@ihuxq.UUCP (covert) (02/20/84)
-------------------- --- For a new subject on TAXES: VAT For all you people against President Reagon, just wait for your favorite Democrat candidate to get elected president. One of the things that the Democrats have been trying to do is to institute a Value Added Tax. A VAT is a sneaky way for the feds to grab MORE taxes from the PEOPLE without it showing on your paychecks. A VAT is a form of national sales tax, which the VAT pushers say will reduce the national income tax. The flaw in that argument is why institute a new tax if you don't EXPECT TO RAISE MORE MONEY thru it. BTW, President Reagon is on ther record as OPPOSING the VAT. Can any of your Demo candidates claim the same??? -- Richard Covert AT&T Bell Laboratories ...ihnp4!ihuxq!covert (312) 979-7488
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (02/21/84)
Right, sales taxes (and this includes a VAT, which is sort of a cumulative sales tax assessed at each stage of production) are very regressive and no self-respecting Democrat should be in favor of one. But Reagan has much better plans for the tax system. He wants a "flat tax", ending the sliding scales which have been instituted to try to add a small bit of fairness to the tax system. His flat tax would assess a flat percentage (the amount usually mentioned is around 20%) of income against all wage earners, regardless of income. Why is such an equitable-sounding idea so bad? The reason is simple on a brief second thought: 20% of an $8000 income just isn't the same as 20% of, say, a $130,000 income. There is clearly a hell of a lot of slack in the second; but try to get by on $8000 /year, let alone $8000-20%. Thus, the sliding rate tax system assess those who can afford to pay more at a higher rate, so that those who are barely scraping by pay at a lesser rate. Reagan's tax policies have gone a long way towards standing this on its head, actually effecting a net transfer of wealth from low-income tax payers to high- income tax payers. Apparently he's only begun. Mike Kelly ..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (02/21/84)
Who was it who proposed merging net.politics and net.flame on the
grounds that the contents were identical?
At any rate, the article this is a response to is the silliest
attack on Democrats that I have seen in a while. Since Richard
Covert doesn't explain the theory behind the value added tax, I
will do so. With an income tax, all income is taxed. With a
VAT, on the other hand, only income spent on consumption is
taxed, and as a result people are presumably likely to invest
more. There is at least on problem with the VAT; since poor
people don't have any money to invest, it is a regressive tax.
At this point I don't recall who has supported the idea of a VAT.
And Ricahrd Covert doesn't say. Instead, he writes:
President Reagon is on ther record as OPPOSING the VAT.
OK. (Although I would remind him that Reagan is also on record
as opposing draft registration and the 55 MPH speed limit.)
Can any of your Demo candidates claim the same???
Quite likely not. The VAT is a dead issue at this point, so it's
likely that no one has every asked the candidates what their
position was. If you really feel that any significant portion of
the Democratic party is going to support a regressive tax, then
you haven't been watching the Democratic party very carefully.
Kenneth Almquistrenner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner ) (02/22/84)
#R:ihuxq:-68500:uiucdcs:29200100:000:817 uiucdcs!renner Feb 22 02:31:00 1984 > /***** uiucdcs:net.politics / hou3c!ka / 10:33 pm Feb 20, 1984 */ > Quite likely not. The VAT is a dead issue at this point, so it's > likely that no one has ever asked the candidates what their position > was. If you really feel that any significant portion of the Democratic > party is going to support a regressive tax, then you haven't been > watching the Democratic party very carefully. On the contrary, the VAT sounds just the sort of thing the Democrats would like. With a little jiggering we could make it look like the seller paid the tax, always a popular illusion. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have any trouble supporting the Social Security "contributions" taken from your paycheck, although SS tax is a perfect example of a regressive tax. Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
msimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson) (02/22/84)
***
22 February 1984.
Mike Kelly (tty3b!mjk) has claimed that a "flat tax"
would end "... the sliding scales which have been instituted to
try to add a small bit of fairness to the tax system." Mr. Kelly,
why do you believe that it is good to discourage people from
generating wealth? Sliding scales give people less incentive
to earn more money, because when someone earns more, a
DISPROPORTIONATELY greater amount of their pay is taken from them
in taxes.
Nobody claimed that getting by on $8000 might not be
easy. (Then again, if your food, housing, and transportation were
being picked up for you, living on $8000 could be quite fun.)
But can one unequivocally determine that Taxpayer X, making $8000
a year, uses SO much fewer tax-supported resources (police, fire,
roads, sewer and water, Social Security, etc.) than Taxpayer Y,
making $130,000 a year, that X should pay far less in taxes than
Y?
It appears to me that the following statements place an
implicit blame upon people in upper income brackets for the
conditions of people in lower income brackets:
" ... 20% of an $8000 income just isn't the same as 20% of, say,
a $130,000 income. There is clearly a hell of a lot of slack in
the second; but try to get by on $8000 /year, let alone
$8000-20%. Thus, the sliding rate tax system assess those who
can afford to pay more at a higher rate, so that those who are
barely scraping by pay at a lesser rate. "
I am not a particular fan of having to pay taxes myself.
But I do believe that sliding scales are NOT the answer.
-- Mike Simpson, BBN
ihnp4!linus!bbncca!msimpson
--
-- cheers,
Mike Simpson, BBN
msimpson@bbn-unix (ARPA)
{decvax,linus,wjh12}!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet)
617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)