Bush tax package guts middle class

[pritchke]

What do you make of this? It sounds like the GST in Canada. Why isn't anybody complaining to the south? When Mulrony passed the GST up here he was tossed in the next election and it destroyed the conservative party. If this passes will Republicans also go the way of the dinosaur. Come to think of it Mulrony is good friends with the Bush's. Hmmm....

By Joan Veon
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


Using tactics of deceit and distortion, President Bush will sign a tax bill that was literally dictated by him to Congress and passed by the Senate late last week while the writers were still crafting it. What is being put into action will not only completely gut our entire tax code but will add a level of taxation that heretofore was only known by the children of Israel when pharaoh commanded them to make bricks without straw.

The tax deductions have been sold to the American people as creating more jobs but the truth of the matter is that Congress feels you and I are not paying enough in taxes. What Bush has done, Clinton could not have ever gotten away with: a tax on everything we buy – otherwise known as a Value Added Tax – for you and I.

If you think you pay a lot in tax now, just wait and see what the Republicans – or should I say, "neocons" have in store for us. Let me give you a glimpse.

First, a Value-Added Tax system is a more "purer" form of tax because it is structured like the morning dew – it will tax everything and every process . For example, currently you are not taxed on the activity (not the gain but the activity) of buying or selling a house. Under a VAT, we will be taxed. Currently you are not taxed for the professional services of our doctor and dentist – those services will have a tax.

The basic structure of a VAT is that it is essentially equivalent to a tax on wages and pure profits – in other words, it is a superior form of tax. In fact, it is a "vertical" tax – depending on how the VAT is structured, every phase of manufacturing and production will be taxed. Currently it is not taxed. For example, the farmer who grows sheep will pay a tax to buy the sheep, then, when he sells the sheered wool, the weaver who buys it from the farmer will pay a tax on that purchase. When the weaver who spins the wool into fabric sells it to a pants factory, the processed wool will be taxed. When the factory sells the pants to the department store, another tax will be levied. At each phase, while there may be some offset in the tax between the various stages of production, you will be taxed on the cost of the shirt which also includes the tax that was paid at each phase. Will the price of the shirt increase – absolutely! So will the cost of living.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the VAT is a more modern tax, providing the ability to tax each phase of production and also the turnover of goods and services, thus increasing the cost to live while providing a greater income stream to the government. A VAT is basically sustainable development at its finest. Government can't continue spending unless it increases its income stream!

Now this brings me to another point – the need for government to increase their income. Do you remember John Maynard Keynes and his socialistic "Keynesian economics"? Essentially, back in 1933 when America went into a major depression, Franklin Roosevelt relied on the "innovative" thinking of Keynes who recommended deficit spending to create new jobs. Well, 70 years later, every level of government in the United States is broke.

Currently, the U.S. government is $7 trillion in debt. Democrats, who have opposed this bill from the beginning, project that under the weight of the huge tax reductions being given to the very wealthy, that by 2013 when it is fully phased in, our debt will rise to $12 trillion or $36,000 for every person in the United States. Basically the July tax rebates we are going to receive will help contribute to this figure. Nothing like paying one credit card with cash from another!

Furthermore, instead of you and I paying taxes and receiving a service, we now live in a time when our government is privatizing (selling its assets to reduce its debt), changing the code so it can increase its income while reducing services to you and I. Under the current tax system, mortgage interest and charitable contributions are deductible. These will have to be sacrificed to provide the government with a greater and constant income stream. Simply put, a "pure tax" is basically "squeezing" the turnip – which is you and I.

So how does a government with a VAT increase revenue? In order to switch to a VAT from our current system of taxing income, the tax brackets of the rich will be reduced from 38.5 percent gradually over a 10-year period to the targeted 21-27 percent VAT rate. This level of taxation is the level that will produce the same amount of tax under our current system. At the same time, the tax brackets of those who have an income of $1 million and above is being reduced, those who currently don't pay tax because they have too little income will have be subjected to an increasing tax bracket which may start out at 10 percent but will have to rise to meet the brackets of the extremely wealthy at 21-27 percent. Is your back breaking yet?

So – what if, in this time of never-ending war on terrorism, the government still does not have enough income? Well, then the rate can be increased. For example, in 1973 when England introduced the VAT, it started at 10 percent ... today it is up to 18.5 percent.

Lastly, the president and his cabinet are unwilling to even admit that they are gutting the current system and putting a VAT in place that will benefit those like Warren Buffet who calculated that he will save $300 million while his secretary's tax rate will increase. This tax bill should be more accurately called, "The Gutting of the Middle Class."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joan Veon is a certified financial planner and is president of Veon Financial Services, Inc., an investment advisory firm.

[Timber Loftis]

Raving idiot. The gov't is not $7 trillion in debt, but Bush does plan to increase the debt to $5 trillion by 2008. A VAT is a purer tax, and if you like I, an avowed eco-nut, have a thesis I wrote on using a VAT system to move toward a fairer and more honest consumption tax. It ain't just the IMF that thinks a VAT is better, but most all OECD countries.

Selling a house is taxed. All dollars greater than your original purchase price count as "income" and get taxed at the capital gains rate -- currently (I think) about 20%.

Do you remember John Maynard Keynes and his socialistic "Keynesian economics"? Essentially, back in 1933 when America went into a major depression, Franklin Roosevelt relied on the "innovative" thinking of Keynes who recommended deficit spending to create new jobs. Well, 70 years later, every level of government in the United States is broke.

JM Keynes was a genius in his day. His ideas were incomplete, but so were Einstein's. Don't blame him because our government was only smart enough to implement the "recession spending" portion of his plan without ever implementing the absolutely necessary "boom taxation" portion.

For example, in 1973 when England introduced the VAT, it started at 10 percent ... today it is up to 18.5 percent.

And it pays for most of the free public health care. Anyway, who says you have to tax at 18.5%??

I could go on (on privatization and other fallacies in the article), but in short, this irresponsible article contains more ignorance than someone with a journalism job should have or any citizen should have.

Sorry, pritchke, if this sounds like it is against you. It isn't. It's against the article.

[ 05-28-2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[TheCrimsomBlade]

Thank you Timber If more people would get the facts straight and quit listening to these stupid Journalists with their ability to twist the truth into so many knots.
Half the people that read it go into A panic and don't see the spin put into the facts and I'm really sick of these articals.
I'm A Democrat and have been all my life but I voted for Bush and I'm proud of it and stand by him all the way to the Voting booth.

[harleyquinn]

I agree with you Timber. I saw a news report on a local news a few years ago when they were talking about a universal health care system, and that to implement it, they would more than likely have to raise taxes. In this news report they spoke with people in Canada, and each and every one of them said that they're ok with paying the GST because they can see all that those dollars are going for. I seriously think that if we implemented something similar here and the used that money for universal health care, better schools, better social security, or variety of other services, where it's easy for people to see where that money is going for, than most people won't be complaining about it. That feeling is just my opinion, however, since it hasn't actually been done, but I think it's accurate. Last year when NY was cutting the libraries' budgets and slashing the money to the schools and county services, the majority of the residents in our county signed a petition given to the County Executive saying that they would accept a tax increase if it meant that the libraries, schools, and services could maintain their current budgets. Unfortunately, he decided to do what he wanted rather than listen to what the people he's supposed to represent wanted.

First, I must say, Im amazed that Pritchke reads the Worldnet daily site [img]smile.gif[/img] hehehe it is a seriously right wing religious site [img]smile.gif[/img]

Secondly old Joan there gives away any credibility of knowing what she is talking about, she says that Bush dictated the tax cuts to congress...if that were the case..why is the total amount about half what he asked for?

Originally posted by harleyquinn: I agree with you Timber. I saw a news report on a local news a few years ago when they were talking about a universal health care system, and that to implement it, they would more than likely have to raise taxes. In this news report they spoke with people in Canada, and each and every one of them said that they're ok with paying the GST because they can see all that those dollars are going for. I seriously think that if we implemented something similar here and the used that money for universal health care, better schools, better social security, or variety of other services, where it's easy for people to see where that money is going for, than most people won't be complaining about it. That feeling is just my opinion, however, since it hasn't actually been done, but I think it's accurate. Last year when NY was cutting the libraries' budgets and slashing the money to the schools and county services, the majority of the residents in our county signed a petition given to the County Executive saying that they would accept a tax increase if it meant that the libraries, schools, and services could maintain their current budgets. Unfortunately, he decided to do what he wanted rather than listen to what the people he's supposed to represent wanted.

Harley, there are seriously bad flaws in Canada's universal "free" health care. I have in the past worked closely with a LOT of Canadian Military...and have personally seen a large amout of Canadians comng to the USA for treatmetn due to long wait periods in Canada. You also have to remember..the entire population of Canada would only make two medium large sized cities here in the States. Roghly 30 million or so.

Im not trying to knock Canada or Canadians, but I do know that thier "Free Health care" has some serious problems care wise and is also having financial problems as well. Can you show me even on government program that efficiently uses your tax dollars? (I don't think so) I don't think a government controlled health cAre system would do any better. Standard of care would go down, and no one would get good care....except those who can afford to leave thecountry and go elsewhere.

The truth is, that the US government already collects more than enough money to pay for everything currently on the plate.....if it would use the funds efficiently and seriously go after those who fraudulently and wastefully use the funds. The latest figures I read show that it is estimated that from 5 to 10% of education funding is lost off the top to waste, fraud and abuse...and that isn't counting stuff at lower levels. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] err yeah Im ranting *sigh* I'll shut up now.

[wellard]

Originally posted by harleyquinn: I agree with you Timber. I saw a news report on a local news a few years ago when they were talking about a universal health care system, and that to implement it, they would more than likely have to raise taxes. In this news report they spoke with people in Canada, and each and every one of them said that they're ok with paying the GST because they can see all that those dollars are going for. I seriously think that if we implemented something similar here and the used that money for universal health care, better schools, better social security, or variety of other services, where it's easy for people to see where that money is going for, than most people won't be complaining about it.

The money could be found for this desirable outcome by cutting the billions in farm subsidies that do nothing but hurt Australian farmers. Of course there is the school ground argument of "but the Europeans do it so we must" without thinking of how the rest (majority) of the world suffer because of this waste of taxes but if you Americans think that farm corp. USA is worth giving money to over free health care at least for children and pensioners then that’s your problem. Just don’t scratch your head in wonder when the rest of the world that is hurt by this rort says F you

End of rant

[Timber Loftis]

WARNING, this is so [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] it gets two [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] signs up front.

Wellard, I despise large Agri-business in the US. I despise how it treats animals, how it uses a sledgehammer amount of fertilizer to swat flies, how it pollutes, how it has killed small farms, etc, etc.

However, on a theoretical level, agriculture is one of those things you should subsidize if the market won't support it. This is because it is the most basic of security issues. Being able to live without *needing* to import any food is a big plus on the national security scale. Hopefully, you would never need these extreme measures, but planning for the worst is best.

In the USA, the market won't support agriculture. Mainly this is a labor issue. Most all production jobs are fleeing or will flee the US and seek cheaper labor elsewhere (the US economy is becoming ever-more service-centered, note that in most cities service jobs are 50%+ of the work force). The savings between labor costs make it much cheaper to buy food from other countries.

So, the market not supporting it and it being a security issue, you reasonably subsidize it.

[img]graemlins/givingspeech.gif[/img] Disclaimer: I do not claim that the *way* we do it is proper, and as I said the current situation is wrong: it is an Oligopoly orgy with the government, and most regulating agencies are "captured" by the industry.

[img]graemlins/givingspeech.gif[/img] As well, I do not claim that my logic stated herein is or ever has been the logic used by the government. The government's logic is much more straightforward: go look at ADM's and Monsanto's lobbying expenditures. Bribes are bribes.

[ 05-29-2003, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Donut]

VAT! Nice to see you moving into line with us Europeans.

BTW - she's wrong about the VAT in the UK - it's 17.5%.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: VAT! Nice to see you moving into line with us Europeans. BTW - she's wrong about the VAT in the UK - it's 17.5%.

Well, in truth state sales taxes are a close cousin of VAT and have been around for ages.