Bill O'Reilly urges Obama to hire him so he can institute a national sales tax
Master economist Bill O'Reilly last night proposed that, to shrink the federal deficit, President Obama adopt the Bill O'Reilly Bold Fresh Economic Recovery Plan: halt "runaway" federal spending, keep the Bush tax cuts, and best of all, institute a federal sales tax.
O'Reilly wants just a 2 percent tax to last only two years. He thinks that'll close the deficit and get the dollar back on solid footing.
He brought on Neil Cavuto afterward. And say what you will about Cavuto, he's not an economic dunce. Like some people. And he tried to explain to O'Reilly that sales taxes don't work that way; they actually would suppress economic demand at exactly the time it needs to be rising.
This went whistling right over O'Reilly's head (duh). What Cavuto left unmentioned, of course, is that a sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes known to man; the tax burden resulting from consumption taxes disparately falls on the lower and middle classes. Guys with big mansions like Bill O'Reilly, however, are perfectly fine coming up with more taxes for working stiffs to pay.
A "federal sales tax" is what's otherwise known as a "consumption tax." It's worth remembering that, back in 2003, George W. Bush floated a similar idea (the suggestion then was to replace the entire income-tax system with a consumption tax), it was shot down pretty quickly.
As Angry Bear explained back then:
There are a number of reasons, including social justice, why a regressive tax is not a good idea, but that's a topic for a later post. Instead, the question is why a consumption tax is worse than an income tax. First, it will surely cost more than it is expected to. Why? Because naively setting the target consumption tax in a revenue-neutral fashion will actually lead to a decline in revenue. A consumption tax increases the cost of the final good to the consumer, meaning that for any price that stores charge, consumers buy less after the tax is imposed than before. Most states have sales taxes around 8%. To replace all income taxes with consumption taxes would require a federal consumption tax of at least 15% on top of the states' 8%. So things will change from the scenario in which, when a store sells a DVD player for $100, the consumer pays $108 to a situation in which the consumer pays $123. Consumers care about price after tax, not before (question: can you buy a $100 DVD player with only a $100 bill?)! So what happens when the effective price to consumers goes up? They buy less DVD players! But the government can not collect sales (consumption) taxes on unsold DVD players. As an economic aside, some, but not all, of the impact of the tax would be borne by sellers. In the current example, the retail price might fall to $95 ($5 less for stores) and the after tax price to consumers would be $95*1.23=$116.85 (an $8.85 increase). Stores get less and consumers pay more, as a result the total volume of goods traded will fall. More generally, any move to a consumption tax that proposes a neutral tax rate, one such that
"(the value of all goods sold * proposed rate) = Income Tax Revenue"
will not generate the same revenue as under the income tax because it fails to account for the fact that the volume of commerce will fall (economists call this "dead weight loss").
Put simply: Consumption taxes drive down economic activity because people will spend less, necessarily. O'Reilly's 2 percent tax won't even cover the decrease in economic demand that would result.
Incidentally, O'Reilly still owes Paul Krugman an apology.
"Fuck it! There's no revenue there!"
"..what does that mean 'to play us out' ...?!"m>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duXohSAjP2w&fe...
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln-cBFanW9I
best visuals ...
but I think this has a better groove:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSUHm8JRYdY&fe...
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
Flat taxes are regressive, bearing heaviest on the poorest. This is consistent with right wing ideology.
O'liely is responsible for the welfare of at least half of the falafel and loofa industries in lower Manhattan. That is like 5 jobs right there!
would be a tax on the wealthy. BillO, how does the fact that you have lower taxes because you're rich, create more jobs? How many jobs have you, Rush or Hanity created? Answer, None.
cavutos argument is spot on against o'reillys, but agrybears argument never takes into account the larger paycheck people would take hoe to pay the tax. he's still right to a degree but some arguments for sales taxes replacing income taxes are not as strong as they seem. the point is a tax is a tax and they'll be paid by americans through payroll deduction or sales tax, either way we pay.
There's plenty of reasons to oppose a national sales tax, sufficient that you don't have to make disengenuous arguments. In addition to the fact that a national sales tax, i.e., the so-called Fair Tax, is regressive, it is also difficult and expensive to administer and collect. The wealthy, with ready access to foreign markets and informal arrangements, will purchase goods and services in a manner that enables them to minimize their tax burden. They will purchase goods and services off-shore, beyond the reach of U.S. taxing authorities, and exchange goods and services with others without recording the transactions.
It's funny -- "Fair Tax" proponents/chowderheads like Neal Boortz make the argument that a sales tax will prevent wealthy drug dealers from escaping their tax liability, but completely ignore the fact that those same individuals already take advantage of the system in purchasing luxury goods and services where they cannot account for their income. How do I buy a $75,000 vehicle with no demonstrable income, where the IRS tracks all purchases of $10,000 and more? Find a dealer more interested in profit than principle, and break the purchase up into smaller pieces.
put your 2 percent tax on the richest one per-centers in this country. their tax rate is way lower than when they had uncle raygun to kick around. in fact 5% on the rich would be a much better plan, that would have the best deficit reduction than any VAT. billo wouldn't like that though since he and the rest of his lying rich fux buddy's would have to cough up more. also, make the rich pay a real proportion of their FICA. us working slugs pay a much higher portion of our bucks in FICA than the rich scum like billo, beck, and klanity. even warren buffet has said he doesnt think his secretary has to pay more in percentile than him.....
we are living in a true oligarchy....
he's so lucrative and easy to exploit.
A VAT is preferable to a sales tax, they are not the same thing.
Preferable to a VAT would be an increase in the Capital Gains tax to the same level as ordinary income.
Also, remove or significantly raise the cap on Social Security and Medicare.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
..something I agree with you on...Wow!
"Preferable to a VAT would be an increase in the Capital Gains tax to the same level as ordinary income."
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Let's try another one.
In order to increase the Capital Gains tax, which is the playground of the Capitalists, the upper 1%, we would need to institute a government not beholden to the upper 1%.
In other words something other than the Plutocracy we have.
My latest comment on class here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
.tools what we are all about here at C&L? I have to believe my vote counts for something. I believe rolling back the bush tax cuts on the rich, something feet are being dragged on, will boost revenue. Yes, there are too many Corporatists and Lobbyists and we villify them daily but the Democracy we enjoy comes with a price and we, the electorate, must pay attention. You do, I do, many of us do and we blog and bitch and moan when the inequities of our democratic system come to light but it is still a democratic process and hopefully the words being written at this and other similar websites will raise the awareness of some of the more apathetic in this country so that we have a true representative government.
The reversal of the bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans in this country puts their tax burden back at 1999 levels; still better than what it was decades ago.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Very well written.
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
Income, which is usually derived from the instantion of capital (i.e. 'real' or physical wealth if you may), is heavily taxed. Whereas Capital gains, which are related with credit and thus its not 'real' value untile it gets instantiated.... it is fairly untaxed.
It think almost every American thinks they are going to win the lottery, so they cherish the potential to be wealthy (capital) more than their current economic reality (wages).
Remove the income cap on Social Security. That problem solved.
Raise the capital gains tax by 2%, Budget problem alleviated.
Cut the defense budget by 2%...or how about just remove the automatic increase triggers.
Tax alll offshore investments.
Remove deductions on second and third homes.
Solutions are easy...politics is hard.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
And while we're on the subject.
Tax healthcare benefits on INDIVIDUALS making more than $250,000/year.
Tax healtchcare benefits for publicly elected Federal officials.
Increase the highway tax on commercial interstate transport.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
And while I'm really on the subject.
MANDATORY 50% tax on corporate "golden parachute" retirement plans for CEOs. (keep the money in the company where it belongs. Poor performance should not be rewarded).
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
The capital gains tax is not a tax on wealth per se, but a tax on the increase in wealth.
The decreases in the rate since Reagan have led to the lopsided increases in wealth for those who already have it.
If those that have no wealth were concerned, they would have appropriate exclusions.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
of a consumption tax is that when it is placed on necessities, 'consumers' dont have any lee-way to 'buy less' ... utilities? gasoline ? (yes, a necessity for many working class commuters with no mass transit) hell, diapers ...?! (convince baby Tyler to ease up?) ...
after you have already cut back its hard to use less electricity.
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
We would have a lot more money to play with if the richest 1% paid what they owed. Tax loopholes, tax shelters and plain old tax fraud that goes undiscovered and rules that go unenforced (what a surprise that the IRS has gradually reduced its rich-guy-tax-fraud-investigation resources!) collectively result in a drastically reduced intake.
This is entirely separate from increasing the tax %s so that the billionaires pay for all the security they're getting and all the infrastructure their corporations rely on.
What bothers me about the current tax system is that it discourages saving. With a consumption tax you get to decide if you you want to pay taxes... just don't buy stuff and you don't pay tax. As it stands you pay your taxes no matter what, so why save? It is correct that people will spend less, and that's the point - we really don't need to buy any more shit.
And lets be honest - everyone blathers on about how important savings are, but as soon as anyone talks about policies that would encourage less spending people act like it is the end of society.
This is why you are labeled a "consumer" much more often than "citizen". Our ultimate use to the establishment is to consume.
.
Sure, Obama should hire billO if Obama is looking to hire someone who isn't good at anything.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
..dana perino. Just sayin'. That should be the only 'useless' hire for the next three years.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Perino may have her problems, but Bernake's failures are historic.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Beck call His Loofaness a Czar? And where on the continuum between photos of Obama and Mao would the Falafel Photo be placed?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
They think the poor and the middle class should die in wars to protect corporate interests, pay all the taxes, and get absolutely nothing back in the form of social services.
So the wealthy should contribute absolutely nothing to the society? The dog is supposed to out of his way to make the ticks comfortable?
... they think they're the dog, and we're the ticks.
Pakistan and then entered into a one-legged ass-kicking contest at the Walter Reed VA Hospital for Dick Cheney's amusement!
I really don't like Bill-O at all. But at least this segment is discussing ideas and solutions, wrong or right, and not spent vilifying others who hold different opinions. If the blowhards spend more air doing this, the debate might at least advance.
It is the "I am not racist, but those damn ni**ers...." post for this thread?
Lemme guess you are "super duper liberal" and all that stuff...
Or are you just marking newbies in the territory?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
so I am at a loss what revisiting your childhood has to do with anything.
Putting you and evet in the ignore list works wonders for the readability of this site. LOL.
A defeated and disgraced right-winger said something he has no power to implement.
And while your back is turned corporate Dems will take full advantage.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
In time of war and or recession, in order to not suppress consumer purchasing of basic necessity goods, (the products of industries you will need to sustain) food, clothing, basic housing, reliable transportation, education, healthcare - taxes should be should be levied on those purchases that fall outside those basic necessities.
That means taxing the war industry with its high profits. Granting that most of that income goes back to that same industry but it does lift some of the burden off of the basic necessity industries.
And tax non-necessity luxury goods. That could also apply to purchases in an amount above a certain level- say the excess cost of a Mercedes over the cost of a Ford compact.
If the gov. really wants the income, charge the sources that can pay the most.
In time of peace and good economy of that burden can be eased as the budget comes back into the black.
If the war industry wants another war, at least they will know that they have pay for it. If Wall Street wants an inflationary bubble to burst so they can pick up stock on the cheep or collect on the bets they laid that the bubble would burst, let them know that they will have to pay for the drop in taxe revenue that results from the following depression/recession.
..that ruined companies in the eighties. A lot of people in the Boat Building Industry lost their jobs and it drove a lot of companies over to China to remain competitive. It did a lot for China's economy; not much for ours.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
market. Right?
..a lot of large boats are being built there right now. There and in Turkey.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
at very reasonable prices... good for them!
..can be unemployed.
I work in the Marine Trades and I'm fortunate to have a job. I read, on a daily basis, of the bankruptcies, lay-offs, furloghs, all of it. There are people I don't talk to anymore because they've fallen off the grid. Its F-ing depressing. I'm not happy about boats being built in China but it was bound to happen. I'm not happy about Americans losing their jobs because of Luxury Taxes that force companies to have boats built in China for the rich and shameless either.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
I read a report the other day, and I will return to POST it when I can find it, that said it wasn't SPENDING that's killing us right now but REVENUE or the LACK of it. In case anyone is wondering, its the REVENUE not being collected due to the bush tax cuts/transfer of wealth to the wealthy. REVERSE w's tax cuts for the wealthy NOW Mr. President as you promised.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
... is the unemployed who are not paying taxes (if they paid any before) but still consume from the community.
What to do? Find jobs for the unemployed or raise more taxes from the rich.
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
"The economic growth under George W. Bush did not generate nearly enough tax revenue to pay for his agenda, which included tax cuts, the Iraq war, and Medicare prescription drug coverage."
Looking at the fiscal year 2009 data, former Reagan Treasury official Bruce Bartlett three weeks ago destroyed the mythology of the born again Republican deficit hawks:
Now let's fast forward to the end of fiscal year 2009, which ended on September 30. According to CBO, it ended with spending at $3,515 billion and revenues of $2,106 billion for a deficit of $1,409 billion.
To recap, the deficit came in $223 billion higher than projected [in January], but spending was $28 billion and revenues were $251 billion less than expected. Thus we can conclude that more than 100 percent of the increase in the deficit since January is accounted for by lower revenues. Not one penny is due to higher spending."
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
the hot air that comes out of Bill0's butt everytime he and the other "evil empirists" on Fuchs Noise open their jaws.
But with Cap & Trade Billo can just sell his pollution allotment to Beck. We get the same pollution, and Billo gets the profit.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Next...Bill O'Reilly will wax eloquent on other topics he knows nothing about, such as global politics, race relations, human sexuality and proper etiquette.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Although, he does have direct experience on court room proceedings and how to give depositions.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
My late brother was an attorney. He was a graduate of Notre Dame Law School. He was a tax attorney. He made a damn good living helping rich people avoid paying taxes. He did it legally using the tax code. The rich can always afford to use people like my brother to get out of paying their fair share. It is the middle class and the poor who get fucked. My brother also had corporate clients. he practiced in three states. Like I said, he made a damn good living. Don't blame him, it is how the system is set up. He went to school, studied hard, passed the bar in three states and prospered. I am a cynical son of a bitch, I don't believe that anything is going to change in my lifetime.
A national sales tax is still a good idea going forward for tax revenue that will pay for public services, such as health care. It shouldn't be implemented to replace another tax. And 2% is quite modest to start with, in Canada the national sales tax is at 5% (was 7% a couple years ago). American jobs will start coming back next year and maybe in 1 year would be the best time to introduce a national sales tax.
But a part of America's problem is it consumes too much anyway, why on earth is Crooks and Liars arguing against a tax that could possibly lower consumption? This blog was anti-black Friday just a week ago.
We know that a national sales tax will effect the lowest income people the most.
maybe but if consumer demand drops, then so will prices. besides, a good national sales tax would be exempted from some products that are considered basic needs, like food. so how about instead, we pay for their health care from all the luxury spending of higher income people?
Luxury taxes sound good in principal. They are rife with fraud, and become tax return nightmares.
The accountants however, do love them.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
why would it be a nightmare? why would there be fraud, you pay the sales tax when you make the purchase.
That's not how luxury taxes have been assessed in the past.
They have historically been assessed as a supplemental tax when you file.
Also, if you want to make a real economic bank...make the tax on cars and appliances DEDUCTIBLE, except on vehicles over $55,000. Appliances does not mean DVD players. It means refrigerators, washers, dryers. Shit that REAL people use.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
A national sales tax is grossly regressive, as is a flat tax.
That is why right wing capitalists support both.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
so are you against the gas tax? i seem to recall mccain's suggestion last summer of temporarily suspending it was lambasted by the left.
what right wingers want is to replace progressive tax with flat tax, that is obviously a bad idea. but a smart tax code will use both. A 2% sales tax is quite modest and wouldn't have a sharp impact on consumer spending.
first response. Your and BillO's idea would also hurt the economy and the jobs market. Less money spent on product lowers demand.
power are not constant among states. Thus a flat national sales tax would unfairly tax those living in states with higher local sales taxes, I think.
Although I would think a VAT-like approach if implemented correctly would work wonders. But I think this is just a silly attempt by O'reilly to try to pretend to be sane. If he really cared about taxation, he should be reeling about the fact that the top 5% are grossly undertaxed, and that we now live in a country which raises more money from income than corporate and capital taxation, and that is a travesty. But he is conspicuously quiet about those item, just like all those "concerned about taxes" teabagging idiots.
Suspension of the gas tax is a huge sop to corporations.
It has only marginal impact on most Americans.
It's also a sop to the south and midwest, where there is no no major mass transit.
Want to cut a tax Mr. McCain, cut the taxes on commuter rails and inner city subways.
You won't see him suggest THAT.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
I'd take the Chicago Transit Authority on its worst day over every supposed transit system on the West Coast combined.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
comprehensive systems than Chicago, at least from my personal experience. Although I think the issue has more to do with personal intercity travel, which in the midwest usually implies longer distances and car/plane.
Any American mass transport system however, looks down right 3rd worldish when compared to what I have seen in Europe and Japan.
Fri, 12/04/2009 - 10:52 — fiver
I'd take the Chicago Transit Authority on its worst day...
_______________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72NMsRyD-6Q
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the real point was glassed over and is far more important then the point discussed, it's "regressive"
a sales tax cost more for the middle and lower class then it costs for the upper class, THAT'S WHY BILL WANTS IT
what does "regresive" mean?
it means the wealthy pay less then other classes
A middle or lower class person spends almost their entire wage and that means they ar re-taxed numerous times for local, state and useage fees
the wealthy spend only a small portion of the income and are therefore never retaxed on that unspent wage
this is the reason we went to an income tax in the first place, useage taxes ALWAYS cost the middle and lower classes more then the wealthy
even WITH "progressive taxes" the lower and middle classes pay about DOUBLE the precentage that the wealthy pay
all taxes should be income based, sales tax should be billed back to the fed and that tax collected as a percentage of overall wage
THAT would represent a "true" progressive tax at the same time as representing a "true" flat tax
don't beat me up over the flat tax stuff, the wealthy's idea of a "flat tax" is not flat at all
when they wealthy say "flat tax" the do not mean "therefore eliminate regressive taxes"
when I say "flat tax", if we eliminated all regressive taxes the flat tax would actually have the upper class paying their fair percentage rather then living off the middle class and labor class tit
my sorta flat tax idea.
5% flat tax on all income, no deductions, no tax credits, no anything. Straight 5% of all income. Then a tax added on like what we currently have but vastly streamlined, with the original 5% allowed as a deduction. But under no circumstances are you allowed to pay less than 5%. Or get any tax rebates/refundable tax "credits" that would bring you below that 5%.
state and local tax systems are still regressive in nature.
Check out "Who Pays?".
From the report:
Fairness is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Yet almost anyone would agree that the best-off families should pay at a tax rate at least equal to what low- and middle-income families pay. Virtually every state fails this basic test of tax fairness: as this study documents, only two states require their best-off citizens to pay as much of their incomes in taxes as their very poorest taxpayers must pay, and only one state taxes its wealthiest individuals at a higher effective rate than middle-income families have to pay.
but implementation isn't easy. Value added taxes are a much better and fairer tax regime when properly instituted. That's why most countries in the world use them. They need not be regressive. Up here in Canada GST ( a VAT sales tax) would disproportionately hit lower income groups if quarterly income based rebates were not used. That system costs money to run of course but those people given to conspicuous consumption pay more taxes so it is not at all regressive.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Here in our country VAT taxes have been advocated by people like George HW, where it adds to the price of the final good, while taxes and inflation are otherwise "officially" holding steady.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
doing this now. But it is something to consider down the road. In Canada the GST replaced an 11 percent manufacturer's tax while the service industries paid nothing. The GST spread the burden much more equitably.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I think that would take an act of Congress, because sales taxes right now are exclusively for local government's utilization.
Experts say that even as high as 17% they wouldn't pay all our costs, and this was BEFORE Aghanistan/Iraq.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Most ountries that have a national sales tax also have universal healthcare, national pensions, guaranteed vacations, guaranteed paid maternity leave, etc. If Bill wants to bring all of that along with a VAT I say go for it. Otherwise I say cram it.
So, BOR wants Obama to hire him in order to institute a highly regressive national sales tax. Isn't BOR one of those treasonous bastards that jumped on the "Obama must fail (by any means possible)" band-wagon?
I seem to recall that BOR and Fux Noose both acknowledged that the Wall Street Banker Bail-Out has not "trickled down" to Main Street. In other words, one small group that has benefitted the most from government & taxpayer largesse has chosen not to spread the wealth to help invigorate the economy. I am shocked. By BOR's and Fux Noose's own petard can we hang them, because the only other small group that has benefitted magnificently from government & taxpayer largesse have been the top 5% wealth-holders in this country. They aren't spending their ill-gotten gains in a way to stimulate the USA economy, either.
Both of these small but fiscally blessed groups are too busy hiding their loot in off-shore tax haven accounts, investing overseas in whatever locale that they can arbitrage their best ROI -- it sure isn't here. Neither a regressive national sales tax, nor a "flat tax" are the answer to economic stagnation - they are part of that Neo-Con pipe dream, you know, of "serfs & lords", or that other more recent one of "Obama must fail".
Here are some far better ideas:
Immediately roll back the five subsequent years of tax cuts under Dubya for the top 5% income brackets.
Reinstitute a reasonable 33% tax rate on capital gains taxes.
Institute an actual minimum living wage of $12 per hour, adjusted over 5 years to $20 per hour. The unused EIC can be plowed into tax incentives for small business hiring stimulus.
Bring back the windfall profits tax, and apply it to our war-profiteers.
Bar any corporation that moved their headquarters overseas to escape USA taxes from doing business with the USA government, unless and until they pay a penalty equal to the taxes they "escaped".
Trickle-down economics is, to borrow an apt description, voodoo economics. OTOH, it has been proven that a "rising tide lifts all boats". That major portion of our economy that is not M.I.C.-driven is based upon consumerism. Consumers have to have the capital in order to consume. Otherwise, this country's economy is still circling the drain.
Screw BOR and his Reich-wing buddies. Their economic plan is what brought the USA to this point to begin with.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Anyone else find it interesting that Bill made a slip of the tongue and said "...that's why I'm asking President BUSH to bring me in..."
Does his mind let him think working with Obama is a good idea if he's really his buddy Bush?
I was wondering if I was the only one who caught that - had to go way down in the comments to find I'm not alone.
Thank you.
so I missed that, but I assume it is a Freudian slip. It is clear that the GOPers can't bring their pea brains to recognize the legitimacy of Obama (mostly because he is not "one of them").
Which makes Obama's attempts to cater to these vermin through thick and thin even the more sad and pathetic... I think at this point most Dems act like the proverbial abused spouse trying to desperately gain the validation of their abuser. It is just sad...
from the Paris Business Review....
...tax overseas corporations.
Americans need to throw down and institute a " superinternationalcorporateentity tax"
...a tax on "imported goods" ...a tariff perhaps?
3% tax on all imported goods (services maybe?)...?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
You don't think they tax overseas corporations?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... because tariffs worked wonders last time their boy Hoover passed them. LOL
...thats (one of) the many reasons all the corporations moved out...
So Americans won't collect taxes from them anymore...
Thats why Halliburton moved to Dubai.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
sooooooo rolling my eyes over here...
... look what you can do with the sales tax.
You can raise it without raising it.
You take a $50.00 item, raise the price to $55.00 and then offer a rebate or cashback of $5.00
You pay a 10% higher sales tax in addition, if a rebate, you have to pay $.43 for postage. I don't know how you get the casback.
Think I'm nuts?
That's exactly what car dealerships are doing.
Not only could you pay taxes for a $30,000 car on a car that costs you $25,000 after $5,000 cashback. There are other ramifications with insurance on the inflated price and license fees.
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
...all American corporations on the terror watch list...
Janet Napolitano could deny them passports...
...and that way they couldnt move factory operations to overseas locations anymore?
(and maybe) we could get congress and Obama (since they are so concerned)...to issue "extradition orders" for all forrmer U.S. corporations. (make them move back home)...then tax the crap out of them!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Flat taxes and sales taxes will not work. They do not provide enough money even to maintain basic operations.
Sales tax are regressive, in that although the wealthier actually pay more in actual dollars, the middle and working classes pay more as a percentage of their income. More people buy with credit, and the sales tax adds to the principle and interest amounts, and during economic downturns, purchases go down, and the tax dollars provided as well, right when they're needed to preserve a social net.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Oh yeah, and credit is getting harder to get
So that would be literally tying the nations tax system to the nations banking system, both working contrary to the other.
Additionally, flat taxes and sales taxes would indubitably be added on top of income taxes, unless Amendment XVI is revoked, not an easy feat.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bmIKrU2jQU
Corruption favors the wealthy.
More my preference as a kid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP8mbxZBl3k
More my preference now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oozGotV-Xcs
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
... except in cases of excessive profits.
Taxes are paid by individuals on a scale from about 2% to about 60%.
Corporations who do not overcharge, keeping profits reasonable, make products cheaper for consumers.
Excess profits are confiscated.
The problem though is: What is excessive and how to enforce it within a year (auditing).
If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem
Seems like I heard that even with the current tax rates about half of all US corporations pay no taxes. But I have mixed feelings about corporate taxes. I would love to put them sky high but in reality I know that all they do is pass the tax burden on to the consumer.
Corporations have also to pay for the society which allows them to exist. In fact corporations tend to put higher pressure (and get more in return) in our infrastructure, educational systems, defense, etc, etc, etc.
Unless they pay out of pocket for those things, corporations being tax-except is a silly proposition.
Instead of trying out a new tax, hy don't we just get rid of Corporate Welfare? The Corporations aren't helping anyone the way it is.
I made more money 30 years ago than I did in my last job. And now, I've gotten years of experience.
(was laid off, Nov 07)
In an effort to be "bipartisan" I wouldn't be surprised in Obama did hire O'Reilly. Then bring Cavuto on as his Chief of Staff.
I will buy popcorn wholesale at costco, because I am sure the excuses the usual suspects are going to have to come up in order to rationalize that move... will be far more entertaining than any movie likely to be out by then.
While we argue over taxes for every possible reason we can find...
Scientology continues to enjoy its fraudulent tax-exempt status thanks to illegally granted exemption.
If more people were aware of the situation behind this, it would be a massive news story.
20-25% federal income tax rate on all income between 200% Poverty and 25000% Poverty, and a 95% rate for all income above. Boom! Deficit, recession all taken care of. Next?
Did anybody notice him asking President Bush to bring him in at 3:16?
"A "federal sales tax" is what's otherwise known as a "consumption tax."
WRONG
A consumption tax is a close relative of the income tax.*
A modern sales tax is a value-added tax.
Both are completely different kinds of beasts.
A short-term introduction of such a tax isn't easy. Cash registers would need to be prepared for it, at the very least stating on receipts that the tax is included (and usually also telling about the base price without tax).
A value-added tax requires a lot of accounting in corporations which need to add the tax on what they sell and also register the taxes on what they buy (because the latter reduces the actual amount of tax to pay to the government).
You can introduce such a system in one, maybe two years - but not faster under normal conditions (short of Stalin-like enforcement of change).
Taxes rarely go away once installed, though - the idea of a temporary tax is therefore usually just a deception that conceals the intent to keep the tax.
It's strange to see O'Reilly (right wing) to propose a new tax.
One more point: Taxes cause costs (administration, evasion and consulting). A very low tax rate means that the fixed portion of these costs (especially its administration) are very high in comparison to revenues. That's not what you want in the quest for an ideal tax system. A VAT would become worthwhile at much more than 2%, maybe 10%. European states are near 20% (within completely different taxation systems, of course).
*: Afaik only Croatia attempted a consumption tax.
and closed a few overseas military bases
...and cut off all funds to Israel (because of their undeclared nuclear status)
...we wouldn't have to raise taxes!...?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
But the neocons have to ensure the existence of Israel for Armageddon, remember?
already worked for the Bush administration and now works for the RNC and look at how well that has worked.
I'm from New England but have lived in TN for the past 14 years. (Yuuch)
TN has a 9 and 3/4 sales tax, On everything, including groceries. The property tax here compared to New England is so low. But with the regressive sales tax, the working poor and poor families are paying a much bigger portion of their income. Tn is one of the few holdouts with no state income tax. Every so often, someone will try to get them going to start a state income tax. That's when you see the tea baggin fools (before they bagged) protesting against their own self interests. It is unfair to tax groceries at all. People do have to eat after all.
A National sales tax is just another way to keep the little people in their place. But then TN never really cared about the working poor.
No tax on food here in parts of the east.
"Anyone that makes less than $150K in this country, has no business voting Republican."
Europe is working on matrixes for tax assessment, and it seems to be more fair. The higher the value of the item, the higher the tax.
Example- a $15,000 car gets taxed at 6%.
A $125,000 car gets taxed at 18%.
Another tax we have in Spain is patrimony tax, basically a tax on one's net worth. The tax doesn't apply to people with low net worth, and starts at .5%. For the wealthy, it can be as much as 3.5% per year. The original intent of patrimony tax was to get people to declare all their assets. If Hacienda discovered undeclared assets, it would consider them income, and tax them at the income tax rate.
Republicans would freak out if a tax on wealth itself was put forth. I would pay it just to see them all simultaneously have a stroke.
O'Reilly Never Changes ... he's a self important gas bag with age spots playing the same tired old game of got ya and cut his mic. He's a pathetic little man with an insecure ego who is angry and unlovable. God please go away and leave us alone O'Reilly ... we are so sick of your psycho drama.
If a sales tax is too high it would stifle consumer spending, which as far as I understand is what drives our economy.
I mean, who would want to purchase a $1,000 item if you'll be taxed $250 (assuming a national sales tax would be 25 percent) as opposed to $40 under the current federal tax?
Plus, a national sales tax would hurt the middle and working classes the most, since they are the ones who do most of the spending.
It's amazing to witness how little BillO knows about economics. He should team up with Sarah Failin!
Comments are closed on this entry