Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 2:19 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 11 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

AT&T, Inc. Message Board

  • faustmanv@sbcglobal.net faustmanv Apr 8, 2010 1:51 PM Flag

    Value Added Tax (VAT) Will Destroy The USA (Vid)

     

    CATO Institute Senior Fellow Dan Mitchell and UNC School of Law professor William Turnier weigh in on the proposed value added tax. They agree that a V.A.T. is bad for the country and the real way to solve our economic problems is to decrease the size and spending of Government. If they add this new tax it will mean bigger government, more out of control spending and more corruption. The Bigger Government gets the more Freedoms and Rights Americans will lose.
    Video Here>>
    http://governmentmess.blogspot.com/2010/04/value-added-tax-vat-will-destroy-usa.html

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Yep, Congress is getting dangerously close to running out of other peoples money.

    • My life only gets better if the rich pay there fair share of the Taxes. My life right now is not so great because I am paying a much larger percentage of my income for taxes because the Rich are able to manipulate the Tax Laws and Tax codes to pay a much smaller Percentage of their income in taxes. That then causes me to pay a lot more. Why should I be happy about that?

    • So you're one of those that want to tax success. If you were rich I doubt you would feel that you aren't paying enough.

      Some rich had daddy leave them the money, some won a lotto, but most of them had to work for it and without their success you wouldn't be making enough to have to pay 25% in taxes. Part of the reason your paying 25% is that the government keeps giving your money to slackers, druggie and to foreign countries that don't even like us.

      So, how do you feel about those no paying taxes and getting refunds? How about those foreign nationals that came here and after a few years were made eligible for SS benefits that they never paid into? How about Mexicans coming across the border to have free kids that are automatically citizens?

      How do you feel about a Congress that makes tax laws they ignore? How about those making the tax laws that the rich so infamously take advantage of, then complaining that the rich (and most of them are) get such breaks. My guess is that those laws will never get changed; they will all just make a lot of noise about it and blame non-passage on the other Party. Corruption at its finest in Washington DC.

    • I'm confused. How does your life get better if anyone pays more taxes...the rich or the poor?

    • Easy, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Is his time in office the only time reference you have to lean on? The man is gone. He is not President and he wasn't that good a President when he was in office.

      He talks a good fight about what should be done, what should have been done, but he didn't do it while he had the chance.

    • "...22.2 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration which was more than the number of jobs created during the Reagan administration..."

      Esey, That may be... But, just because they were in office during those times, what makes you think they were directly the cause of those results?

      Business forces are global and complex and sometimes take a long time to evolve. I'm sure you don't attribute our economy's woes to Obama...right?

    • daleandersen@sbcglobal.net daleandersen Apr 12, 2010 8:04 AM Flag

      >>> what systems that Reagan put in place would have caused the enormous number of jobs created during the Clinton administration?

      The tax law changes for starters. Reagan lowered the tax rates for EVERYONE -- not just the rich, as you asserted. Reagan took most of the the lowest income quintile and relieved them of their federal tax burden. By lowering the tax burden for everyone, it caused tremendous economic growth. Because of that growth, the amount of revenues exceeded the pre-tax cut revenues for the federal government.

      Secondly, Reagan was the last president who addressed the issue of Social Security and the sad financial shape that it is in by adjusting the amounts paid in by the employer and employee (Yes, this was considered a tax increase -- necessary due to the amount of the entitlement drawn due to increasing life spans).

      Next, Reagan slowed the growth of the federal government. Note that I didn't say it didn't get larger. But growth did slow under Reagan. Additionally, Reagan outsourced much to the private sector.

      Lastly, if you go back and look at Reagan's speeches, you'll see that he started an era of the American people doing for themselves and one another rather than relying upon the federal government to fix their ills. Reagan spoke of a 'shining city upon a hill' in a number of inspirational speeches.

      The American people and the presidents that followed Reagan benefitted from his vision and insight.

    • Are you serious? 22.2 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration which was more than the number of jobs created during the Reagan administration. In addition what systems that Reagan put in place would have caused the enormous number of jobs created during the Clinton administration? Reagan was given credit for lowering the top tax rate for the rich, but Clinton raised that top tax rate. The point is that even though he raised that top tax rate the number of jobs created was enormous and the rich got richer as well.

    • daleandersen@sbcglobal.net daleandersen Apr 11, 2010 3:53 PM Flag

      >>> I repeat - when Clinton raised the top tax rate, it did not stop rich people from investing money in businesses. We had a terrific economic expansion during those years.

      One of the things that Clinton and Congress did early in his presidency was to raise the tax on luxury items. One in particular was yachts. That tax increase didn’t hurt the rich much – they simply purchased their yachts overseas. It did nearly destroy our domestic yacht building industry. I might add that building yachts is a job done mainly by the middle class. As the rich purchased their yachts elsewhere, jobs dried up.

      >>> On the other hand George W. Bush lowered the top tax rate and we didn't see rich people rushing to invest more money into businesses,etc.

      The reason is that Bush, Clinton, and Bush were benefactors of the system put in place by the Reagan administration. Oh, the Clinton tax increases did slow economic growth, but didn’t cause a recession until shortly after GW Bush was inaugurated. We were actually near recession when 9/11 occurred. It got much worse after 9/11 happened. The Bush tax cuts did help to stimulate the economy and minimized the impact of the recession that occurred after 9/11.

      We will soon see the impact of the Obama spending spree. We will see the impact of the sunset of the Bush tax cuts which are coming soon. We will also see the impact of the Obama tax increases – there’s lots to pay for… My guess is that Obama will apologize to the middle class as he bends them over (taking a play from Clinton during his first term).

    • dale, I repeat - when Clinton raised the top tax rate, it did not stop rich people from investing money in businesses. We had a terrific economic expansion during those years. Lots of jobs were created. Rich people got richer and there were actually new millionaires and billionaires created. On the other hand George W. Bush lowered the top tax rate and we didn't see rich people rushing to invest more money into businesses,etc.

    • View More Messages
 
T
35.02+0.07(+0.20%)Sep 17 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.