PDA

View Full Version : Time for the VAT ?



LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 07:53 PM
Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look
Levy Viewed as Way to Reduce Deficits, Fund Health Reform

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 27, 2009



With budget deficits soaring and President Obama pushing a trillion-dollar-plus expansion of health coverage, some Washington policymakers are taking a fresh look at a money-making idea long considered politically taboo: a national sales tax.

Common around the world, including in Europe, such a tax -- called a value-added tax, or VAT -- has not been seriously considered in the United States. But advocates say few other options can generate the kind of money the nation will need to avert fiscal calamity.

At a White House conference earlier this year on the government's budget problems, a roomful of tax experts pleaded with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to consider a VAT. A recent flurry of books and papers on the subject is attracting genuine, if furtive, interest in Congress. And last month, after wrestling with the White House over the massive deficits projected under Obama's policies, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee declared that a VAT should be part of the debate.

"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform," Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said in an interview. "I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table."

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor. But VAT advocates say those negatives could be offset by using the proceeds to pay for health care for every American -- a tangible benefit that would be highly valuable to low-income families.

Liberals dispute that notion. "You could pay for it regressively and have people at the bottom come out better off -- maybe. Or you could pay for it progressively and they'd come out a lot better off," said Bob McIntyre, director of the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice, which has a health financing plan that targets corporations and the rich.

A White House official said a VAT is "unlikely to be in the mix" as a means to pay for health-care reform. "While we do not want to rule any credible idea in or out as we discuss the way forward with Congress, the VAT tax, in particular, is popular with academics but highly controversial with policymakers," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for White House Budget Director Peter Orszag.

Still, Orszag has hired a prominent VAT advocate to advise him on health care: Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and author of the 2008 book "Health Care, Guaranteed." Meanwhile, former Federal Reserve chairman Paul A. Volcker, chairman of a task force Obama assigned to study the tax system, has expressed at least tentative support for a VAT.

"Everybody who understands our long-term budget problems understands we're going to need a new source of revenue, and a VAT is an obvious candidate," said Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, who testified on Capitol Hill this month about his own VAT plan. "It's common to the rest of the world, and we don't have it."

Seeking New Revenue

The surge of interest in a VAT is testament to the extraordinary depth of the nation's money troubles. While some conservatives have long argued that a consumption tax would provide a simpler and more efficient alternative to the byzantine U.S. income tax code, this time it's all about the money.

The federal budget deficit is projected to approach $1.3 trillion next year, the highest ever except for this year, when the deficit is forecast to exceed $1.8 trillion. The Treasury is borrowing 46 cents of every dollar it spends, largely from China and other foreign creditors, who are growing increasingly uneasy about the security of their investments. Unless Congress comes up with some serious cash, expanding the nation's health-care system will only add to the problem.

Obama wants to raise income taxes for high earners and impose new levies on business, but those moves would not generate enough cash to cover the cost of health care, much less balance the budget, and they have not been fully embraced by Congress. Obama's plan to tax greenhouse-gas emissions could raise trillions of dollars, but again, Congress is balking.

Key lawmakers are considering other ways to pay for health reform, including new taxes on sugary soda, alcohol and employer-provided health insurance. The last proposal could raise a lot of money -- nearly $1 trillion over the next five years, according to White House budget documents. But options on the table would raise a fraction of that sum. And while it might pay for health care, it would barely dent deficits projected to total nearly $4 trillion over the next five years and to grow rapidly in the future, as baby boomers draw on Social Security and Medicare.

Enter the VAT, one of the world's most popular taxes, in use in more than 130 countries. Among industrialized nations, rates range from 5 percent in Japan to 25 percent in Hungary and in parts of Scandinavia. A 21 percent VAT has permitted Ireland to attract investment by lowering its corporate tax rate.

The VAT has advantages: Because producers, wholesalers and retailers are each required to record their transactions and pay a portion of the VAT, the tax is hard to dodge. It punishes spending rather than savings, which the administration hopes to encourage. And the threat of a VAT could pull the country out of recession, some economists argue, by hurrying consumers to the mall before the tax hits.

A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.

Sales Tax Gains Momentum

Burman, who helped House Democrats craft an unsuccessful 2007 plan to repeal the alternative minimum tax, said he's received a number of phone calls from lawmakers interested in his idea, though "they can't quite imagine how to make it happen politically." Burman said the 25 percent rate has caused some sticker shock, and he's trying to figure out how to bring it down.

Graetz's proposal drew an endorsement from Volcker, who last year called it "a sensible plan for reform." (Volcker did not respond to a request for comment.) It also has piqued the interest of Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee chairman who argues that it could be modified to accommodate Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on families who make less than $200,000 a year.

"I think interest is quietly picking up," Graetz said. "People are beginning to recognize that the mathematics of the current system are just unsustainable. You have to do something. And a VAT has got to be on the table if you want to do something big and serious."

Still, the Senate Finance Committee declined to include a VAT among the options it is considering to pay for health reform. And even VAT supporters doubt the tax will find a place among the tax-reform proposals the Volcker panel has been asked to produce by Dec. 4.

Though the nation's fiscal outlook is grim, Burman said "the situation will have to get more desperate" before lawmakers are likely to consider a new levy aimed directly at the pocketbooks of every one of their constituents.

Most lawmakers are still looking for "a painless source of revenue" to overhaul the health-care system and dig the nation out of debt, Burman said. "Who knows?" he added. "Maybe the tooth fairy will bring that to them."

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602909_pf.html)

LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 08:07 PM
VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.




:gulp:

Thoughts?

[coherent, I mean]

Seshmeister
05-28-2009, 08:15 PM
VAT comes with a lot of fraud. The estimates in the UK for VAT fraud are over £20 billion a year.

You couldn't have sales tax and VAT so how would that work?

LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 08:55 PM
VAT comes with a lot of fraud. The estimates in the UK for VAT fraud are over £20 billion a year.

You couldn't have sales tax and VAT so how would that work?

Is the fraud at the retail level?

And our sales taxes are all local.

Roughly 9% here in Seattle. Food is exempt.

I'm sure there's alot of downside associated with this system.

But our current system isn't exactly working, either...

:gulp:

kwame k
05-28-2009, 08:59 PM
Geez, I don't know. Another tax is the last thing I personally want to see but we have to pay off the drunken spending spree Dubya was on and for all the shit Obama is trying to do to fix the last 8 years. We have to pay for it somehow. Affordable health care for everyone and lowering or doing away with income tax for most Americans. If in fact those 2 things could happen because of this then I'd be for it. The savings I'd benefit from not having to pay for health care myself and income tax would be worth it.

My biggest fear is they sell us this shit and we never get affordable health care or stop income taxes, we just end up paying more for goods and services.

LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 09:08 PM
. The savings I'd benefit from not having to pay for health care myself and income tax would be worth it.

.


That's the rub.

If THAT was the trade-off, than a majority of lower and middle class Americans would see the benefit.

:gulp:

sadaist
05-28-2009, 09:12 PM
Didn't Obama promise that 95% of taxpayers would not pay one additional dime in taxes? I suppose it's true. He's going to squeeze much more than a dime out of us.

LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 09:22 PM
Didn't Obama promise that 95% of taxpayers would not pay one additional dime in taxes? I suppose it's true. He's going to squeeze much more than a dime out of us.

Not sure I get where you're going with that.

Or is it just the typical knee-jerk reaction/Obama bashing?

1] HE isn't proposing this.

2] IF he did, it would REDUCE 95% of taxpayers' obligations.


:gulp:

What are you trying to say?

kwame k
05-28-2009, 09:31 PM
That's the rub.

If THAT was the trade-off, than a majority of lower and middle class Americans would see the benefit.

:gulp:

True but in a way you'd just be paying more for goods and services so you really aren't saving. Higher goods and services, I wonder if you add up the increase cost of that against what you're paying in income taxes and health insurance, if it would come out about even.

Like I said, for me personally doing away with income taxes and giving me affordable health care it might be worth it.

It'll be a hell of a fight in Congress to get it to pass and the Repukes must just be praying that it goes to the floor. You think you saw the Repukes fear-mongering before............wait till they make the rounds on this.

The fact of the matter is our Government spends more than the taxes they generate. Bloated Government is only part of the cause. We Americans want all the services from our Government but don't want higher taxes. At some point something has to give.

kwame k
05-28-2009, 09:35 PM
Didn't Obama promise that 95% of taxpayers would not pay one additional dime in taxes? I suppose it's true. He's going to squeeze much more than a dime out of us.

Did you pay more taxes this April? I didn't, so Obama was right and kept his campaign promise.

Redballjets88
05-28-2009, 09:36 PM
This might be what it comes down to, which sucks.

Look at anything other than government, when times get tough spending is cut, when it comes to our ass-backward gov't, we try to spend more and raise taxes.

They need to cut the fat, and when that is done if we still need to extra tax then put in the VAT.

kwame k
05-28-2009, 09:42 PM
This might be what it comes down to, which sucks.

Look at anything other than government, when times get tough spending is cut, when it comes to our ass-backward gov't, we try to spend more and raise taxes.

They need to cut the fat, and when that is done if we still need to extra tax then put in the VAT.

I've always have been against big Government but.....our infrastructure is falling apart, our children are getting an inferior education, and we still have to wars two pay for.

Our Government needs to be effective big or small. We are facing issues that people haven't seen since the Great Depression and we need Government to straighten it out. If VAT is part of it then we have to seriously consider it.

sadaist
05-28-2009, 09:43 PM
Did you pay more taxes this April? I didn't, so Obama was right and kept his campaign promise.

Yes, I did pay more in April, not to mention March, May, etc... Cigarettes, gasoline, soon to be sodas & beer.......

kwame k
05-28-2009, 09:47 PM
Yes, I did pay more in April, not to mention March, May, etc... Cigarettes, gasoline, soon to be sodas & beer.......
Come on Dude! You paid more for gas under Bush than now. You're Cigs, bitch at your State Government for that.

You know I was talking about income taxes:biggrin:

FORD
05-28-2009, 09:57 PM
What we need is progressive taxation with no loopholes for the rich. We HAD national health care in the budget way back in 1947. Problem is, the BCE diverted it all to their war machine.

Seshmeister
05-28-2009, 10:24 PM
Is the fraud at the retail level?

And our sales taxes are all local.

Roughly 9% here in Seattle. Food is exempt.

I'm sure there's alot of downside associated with this system.

But our current system isn't exactly working, either...

:gulp:


I thought your sales taxes were local. We don't have sales tax. It would be hard to take say 20% VAT plus 9% Sales Tax.

The VAT fraud comes in all sorts of ways. The simple version is where a fraudster imports some goods, and then sells them. When he sells them, he charges the price of the goods, plus VAT. Then he fucks off never passing the VAT onto the government.

Then there is the cleverer stuff which may not work so well in the US but is a huge scam in Europe where several businesses act in concert. In this situation, the goods are sold to a series of companies, before being exported again. The goods therefore go round in a 'carousel'. This is best explained by way of an example.

Consider a trader based in the UK. He buys from France a consignment of mobile telephones for £1,000,000. He pays the French telephone manufacturer for the goods. The goods are then shipped to a dock in the UK. No VAT is charged on that shipment. The trader now sells those telephones to a conspirator, for £1,100,000. He charges 17,5%VAT (the standard VAT rate in the UK) and the conspirator sends £1,292,500 (being the price of the goods plus the tax) to the trader. This conspirator then sells the goods to a third conspirator for £1,200,000, charging VAT on that sale. The third conspirator pays £1,410,000 to the second. This may continue for many conspirators; however three will suffice for an example. The third trader now sells the telephones to a German company, which may well be innocent. No VAT is charged, and the sales price of £1,500,000 paid by the German company without VAT. So far the conspirators have made a profit of £500,000 perfectly legitimately on buying and selling mobile telephones.

In an honest operation the first trader would pay £192,500 to HM Revenue and Customs (the UK's VAT collection agency). The second trade has collected £210,000 in VAT, but paid £192,500 in VAT, and therefore only has to pay the difference (£17,500) to HM Revenue and Customs. The third trader has charged no tax on its sale, but has paid £210,000 in VAT, and can therefore reclaim £210,000 from HM Revenue and Customs.

In the fraud, the first business vanishes, without paying the VAT to HM Revenue & Customs. When the last business in the chain collects £210,000 on the export, all of the businesses can vanish, £192,500 better off at the expense of HM Revenue and Customs. As this business is removed from the vanishing party it is hard for HM Revenue and Customs to show the links in the chain, and thereby refuse to refund the VAT on the export.

These guys don't just not pay tax they get the government to pay them instead.

Dr. Love
05-28-2009, 10:25 PM
exempt income taxing families making less than 250k and I'd support it.

LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 10:25 PM
This might be what it comes down to, which sucks.

Look at anything other than government, when times get tough spending is cut, when it comes to our ass-backward gov't, we try to spend more and raise taxes.

They need to cut the fat, and when that is done if we still need to extra tax then put in the VAT.

I wish for once you knew what you were talking about, instead of spouting tired cliches you've heard.

By "fat" are you referencing the Bush Tax Cuts? The 2 wars? The interest on the debt?

What EXACTLY should have been cut over the last 10 years?

[dont answer for him, FORD, I'd like him to come up with his own answer for ONCE]

:gulp:

Seshmeister
05-28-2009, 10:26 PM
What we need is progressive taxation with no loopholes for the rich.

I don't think that's actually possible.

LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 10:33 PM
I don't think that's actually possible.

Maybe.

But it's probably a helluva alot easier to implement and enforce than a VAT.

I agree with FORD, that we wouldnt need talk of a VAT, or cuts in SS, Medicasi, Medicare, infrastructure, et al if we just made the uber rich and corporations actually pay what they owe.

Look at KBR / Hallibutron for Christ's sake.

Take hundreds of billions in government contracts and then move the HQ offshore to fucking Dubai? wtf?


:mad:

kwame k
05-28-2009, 10:59 PM
True and by our own Government's account something like 90% of big businesses don't pay the taxes they should. GAO report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08617.pdf link again. Wish these guys would actually read some of the links we post.

LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 11:15 PM
. Wish these guys would actually read some of the links we post.

Easier for them to just get the daily talking points from Rush Hannity.

:gulp:

kwame k
05-28-2009, 11:22 PM
Easier for them to just get the daily talking points from Rush Hannity.

:gulp:

True but what is really frustrating is that this isn't a big issue or gets little to no news attention. I really don't see Obama or anyone else as having the balls to address this.

Our own Government knows this goes on and only issues a report about it every now and then:pullinghair:

LoungeMachine
05-28-2009, 11:26 PM
I remember him talking at a PC recently about tightening corporate loopholes and tax fraud.

Haven't heard squat since, though.

Imagine if we put the same emphasis on a WAR ON CORPORATE TAX FRAUD as we did on drugs. Locking up, not fining or slapping the wrists of these crooks.

:gulp:

kwame k
05-28-2009, 11:32 PM
I remember him talking at a PC recently about tightening corporate loopholes and tax fraud.

Haven't heard squat since, though.

Imagine if we put the same emphasis on a WAR ON CORPORATE TAX FRAUD as we did on drugs. Locking up, not fining or slapping the wrists of these crooks.

:gulp:

Seriously, I have a feeling it will never happen. Between the lobbyist and the big money donations, I don't think it's politically expedient to do so.....if you want to get reelected, that is.

sadaist
05-28-2009, 11:35 PM
I thought your sales taxes were local. We don't have sales tax. It would be hard to take say 20% VAT plus 9% Sales Tax.

Taking your hypothetical numbers of 29% on purchases, please remember that those purchases are made with any money we have left after Federal & State income taxes of around 30%.

If you're taxed at 30%, you take home 70% of what you earn.

Then of that 70%, anything you buy is another 30% tax.

Don't forget property tax if you're lucky enough to own anything.

And don't invest your money, those earnings are taxed quite high, and there is a huge tax penalty when you withdrawal your money. Don't spend it though, or you're right back at sales taxes.

These people that love taxes don't think it's a big deal because it's only another 1%, or only another 2%. Well, after enough 1% & 2%'s, you're gonna hit 100%. Then what? It's not like the government will suddenly stop spending more than they have. I know, amnesty for all illegals...they oughta be good for some taxes.

Sorry, every time I hear about another tax being forced upon us it makes me sick. I'd go out and protest, but I'd be branded a racist by the libs. I don't care if the President is black, brown, white, yellow or red. The only color I care about is green.

kwame k
05-28-2009, 11:41 PM
But Sadie when you think about it we need taxes. You don't go to a restaurant and eat a meal and then bitch about the fact they give you a bill at the end of it. When I dial 911 I want a cop, fireman or ambulance there now. When I jump in my Jeep I want the interstate to be pot hole free. So really it's about paying for a services provided.

Look I hate fucking taxes but I do understand I have to pay for the services I use.

sadaist
05-28-2009, 11:42 PM
What EXACTLY should have been cut over the last 10 years?


How about $689,000+ per year San Diego is spending for one contractor to play recorded dog barking noises to drive away a seal colony from a popular swimming area?

That's one example of what I'm sure my city has hundreds if not thousands of. And I'm sure every single city and town in America has crazy bullshit spending like that going on...as well as the Federal Govt who gives the states money. But when they fall short on dollars, they raise taxes or impose new ones or they threaten to cut health care, teachers, firemen & police officers.....instead of all the bullshit. Oh yeah, they'll also have to release violent prisoners out on the streets. That's one of my favorite scare tactics.

sadaist
05-28-2009, 11:44 PM
But Sadie when you think about it we need taxes. You don't go to a restaurant and eat a meal and then bitch about the fact they give you a bill at the end of it. When I dial 911 I want a cop, fireman or ambulance there now. When I jump in my Jeep I want the interstate to be pot hole free. So really it's about paying for a services provided.

Look I hate fucking taxes but I do understand I have to pay for the services I use.

I agree and I pay my taxes. But I don't agree with a soda tax to pay for obese people's health care. If they wanted to be fair, they would weigh a person when they make their purchases and tax them accordingly.;)

And you speak as if all our tax money goes to noble causes. It surely does not.

sadaist
05-28-2009, 11:45 PM
You don't go to a restaurant and eat a meal and then bitch about the fact they give you a bill at the end of it.



It's called the Dine & Dash.

kwame k
05-28-2009, 11:46 PM
I agree and I pay my taxes. But I don't agree with a soda tax to pay for obese people's health care. If they wanted to be fair, they would weigh a person when they make their purchases and tax them accordingly.;)

And you speak as if all our tax money goes to noble causes. It surely does not.
Don't even think that for a second......our tax dollars get pissed away on absolute bullshit, like the Iraq war;)

Soda tax, sin tax those are always going to get taxed, just a fact of life.

kwame k
05-28-2009, 11:48 PM
It's called the Dine & Dash.

Grub and Go:biggrin:

sadaist
05-28-2009, 11:56 PM
Don't even think that for a second......our tax dollars get pissed away on absolute bullshit, like the Iraq war;)

Soda tax, sin tax those are always going to get taxed, just a fact of life.

Ah, normally I don't rant like this. Just work has been slower than it should be and I'm really feeling the pinch this year. Then I keep hearing about all these proposed new taxes & price hikes it sends me off the edge.

In fact, what I need right now is to log off, crack a cold one, put on the head phones & listen to Fair Warning. Laterz guys.

kwame k
05-29-2009, 12:07 AM
Ah, normally I don't rant like this. Just work has been slower than it should be and I'm really feeling the pinch this year. Then I keep hearing about all these proposed new taxes & price hikes it sends me off the edge.

In fact, what I need right now is to log off, crack a cold one, put on the head phones & listen to Fair Warning. Laterz guys.

Same here brother! Things are not like they were for me either.
Hope your mom's doing OK, BTW.

I'm on my fourth Fat Tire Pale Ale!

Big Train
05-29-2009, 01:07 AM
I travel abroad a lot and I'm always amazed at how much those things are. Do damn near anything (eat, drink, sleep) and they whack you for 17.5% for VAT. Claiming my VAT back as a US corp. brings back tidy sums, I can tell you that.

I don't understand why anyone thinks tax is the way out of this mess.

You want to bag on Repulicans and Bush till your blue in the face, go right ahead. But the real need for considering this shit in the first place is because of Obama and his 1.85 Tril a year for the next decade. How about we rethink that for a minute?

What dramatic need is there to jump to those numbers? Show me, exactly and specifically, why we need to overhaul every last thing in our system, while simultaneously drastically expand government in the next five years? Remember the "politics of fear"? America is falling for it twice as hard this time around.

This isn't about America's recovery nearly as much as it is funding a large expansion of the government for reasons unknown.

All America has to do (I KNOW someone will say I'm oversimplifying, but I'm trying to be macro here), is get back to basics.

1. Enforce existing rules-Close tax loopholes and shelter abuse, step up enforcement of illegal immigration at both the border and business ends of the spectrum, allow personal and business bankruptcy to happen without needless government intervention and funding. Actually monitor the financial markets as charged and stop allowing things you don't understand to be sold on the market (i.e. complex proprietary formulas only a private company, not the SEC understands selling packaged housing derivatives).

2. Set correct priorities-Fund the correct things in the correct proportion. Make debt reduction the primary focus. That means cutting across the board regardless of who's vote we piss off or who is screaming in the streets. The voters of California have set a good precedent. Tell the special interests, whether corporate or unions, to get fucked. This does not mean expanding anything, which is most of the 1.85 Tril. End the wars if he wants and let's get some money flowing back in.

3. Develop and grow new industries on US soil. That means cutting taxes, not adding them to the already intense strain US business is under. New investment does not occur when tax implications are too high. Lower cost structures mean faster expansion, which means a larger tax base. I'd rather charge more people less than less people more. There is more money in it.

LoungeMachine
05-29-2009, 01:45 AM
I


You want to bag on Repulicans and Bush till your blue in the face, go right ahead. But the real need for considering this shit in the first place is because of Obama and his 1.85 Tril a year for the next decade. How about we rethink that for a minute?

.


Bullshit.

And I can't bother with the rest of your post/argument because this annoys me so much.

6 fucking years of a REPUBLICAN congress / White House SPENDING, warring, and giving HUUUGE tax breaks put us here.

So your fucking argument is lost from the start, because your premise is shit.

:gulp:

Too bad, too. Probably had good points.

Nitro Express
05-29-2009, 01:58 AM
They have a value added tax in Norway of 24%. All your dental care and medical care is paid for by the taxes. Your children's college education is paid for by the taxes. Norwegians have more free time than Americans. The downside is buying anything is very expensive and you have limited choices. Some people like this system and others don't. I think it works well in a population that wants it and is composed of similar thinking and behaving people.

I don't think it would work well in a large, diverse country like the United States. Also tax preparation is a $60 billion a year business. Getting rid of the income tax would create a lot of unemployment. The accountants will fight tooth and nail to keep the ineficient and stupid income tax system.

Nitro Express
05-29-2009, 02:09 AM
To be honest. The American people are getting the government they deserve and have asked for. They got two terms of Bush and now they have Obama. Both presidents love to spend, spend, spend and Obama is expanding the war. We will be involved in more countries by the time he's done. More of the same but the salesman is different. I don't think there is much difference between Republicans and Democrats. They both cater to the same big money that backs both sides. It's all a corrupt rabble of politicians, bankers, govt. contractors, and corporations. They play the American public like fools because they are fools. We have and are being duped majorly. I mean look at the trillions of dollars that have been stollen in plain site using a banker bailout as the excuse. People should be mad as hell and rioting in the streets in Washinton DC but they are too lazy and stupid and the fleecing will continue.

LoungeMachine
05-29-2009, 02:09 AM
They have a value added tax in Norway of 24%. All your dental care and medical care is paid for by the taxes. Your children's college education is paid for by the taxes. Norwegians have more free time than Americans. The downside is buying anything is very expensive and you have limited choices. Some people like this system and others don't. I think it works well in a population that wants it and is composed of similar thinking and behaving people.

I don't think it would work well in a large, diverse country like the United States. Also tax preparation is a $60 billion a year business. Getting rid of the income tax would create a lot of unemployment. The accountants will fight tooth and nail to keep the ineficient and stupid income tax system.

I agree.

There would be HUGE lobbies against this move. And we all know who REALLY runs D.C.

The Lobbyists.

There will never be green energy, single payer healthcare, or tax reform WITHOUT lobby reform first

:gulp:

Big Train
05-29-2009, 03:18 AM
Bullshit.

And I can't bother with the rest of your post/argument because this annoys me so much.

6 fucking years of a REPUBLICAN congress / White House SPENDING, warring, and giving HUUUGE tax breaks put us here.

So your fucking argument is lost from the start, because your premise is shit.

:gulp:

Too bad, too. Probably had good points.

It's too bad you weren't calm enough to read what I actually wrote. I'm not denying Bush's end of this at all. It's put us in a jam. What I'm questioning is Obama's solution, which apparently is off-limits to discuss, as he is the One. What I'm saying is perhaps at this juncture, fiscal prudence and business stimulation (the correct kind, when you are calm enough to read, you'll notice I don't mention closing tax loopholes and the like, not to mention ending the wars) is the correct course of action, not massive government expansion and further expenditures of tax-based programs?

Get some rest pal, you'll feel better. Cheers.

LoungeMachine
05-29-2009, 03:26 AM
It's too bad you weren't calm enough to read what I actually wrote. I'm not denying Bush's end of this at all. It's put us in a jam. What I'm questioning is Obama's solution, which apparently is off-limits to discuss, as he is the One. What I'm saying is perhaps at this juncture, fiscal prudence and business stimulation (the correct kind, when you are calm enough to read, you'll notice I don't mention closing tax loopholes and the like, not to mention ending the wars) is the correct course of action, not massive government expansion and further expenditures of tax-based programs?

Get some rest pal, you'll feel better. Cheers.

Backpeddle some more, Champ.

I'm not parsing words. I'm quoting YOU verbatim






You want to bag on Repulicans and Bush till your blue in the face, go right ahead. But the real need for considering this shit in the first place is because of Obama and his 1.85 Tril a year for the next decade. .

But. The. Real. Need. First. Place. Obama.

Where in your quote did you lay ANY blame at the feet of the RePukes?

:lmao:

Big Train
05-29-2009, 11:49 AM
No backpedaling at all. If the solution didn't involve massive expansion and overhaul of the government, the tax needs would not be nearly as severe. I guess you just can't understand that.

If you NEED me to state the obvious I will: The "repukes" did get us into a financial mess. Ok, happy now? Can we move on to the actual point? OK, let's go slow now...

But the real need now to consider this (VAT) in the first place is because of Obama and his 1.85 Trillion (HIS annual budget deficits, not Bushes). His solution is to spend double if not triple what Bush did to "fix things". I need to see the reasoning.

Now explain to me why we need all this expansion at a time when tax revenue is shrinking?

LoungeMachine
05-29-2009, 11:56 AM
If you NEED me to state the obvious I will: The "repukes" did get us into a financial mess. Ok, happy now?

I didn't "need" you to. You just claimed to have done that, when in fact you hadn't. And I'm always happy.




But the real need now to consider this (VAT) in the first place is because of Obama and his 1.85 Trillion

It's been "considered" before.





Now explain to me why we need all this expansion at a time when tax revenue is shrinking?


I can't. I have no answers. I'm looking for them, not providing them.

And let's close US [corporate] Tax Code loopholes, k?

It's a start.

:gulp:

ZahZoo
05-29-2009, 01:06 PM
A VAT's Bottom Line

What would it cost? Emanuel argues in his book that a 10 percent VAT would pay for every American not entitled to Medicare or Medicaid to enroll in a health plan with no deductibles and minimal copayments. In his 2008 book, "100 Million Unnecessary Returns," Yale law professor Michael J. Graetz estimates that a VAT of 10 to 14 percent would raise enough money to exempt families earning less than $100,000 -- about 90 percent of households -- from the income tax and would lower rates for everyone else.

And in a paper published last month in the Virginia Tax Review, Burman suggests that a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor.


I'm sceptical of the whole thing... the math doesn't work unless you leave current income rates as they are. Basically it's just going to result in higher taxes for the people paying the most already.

Here's what I see using 2009 tax rates for married filing jointly...

10-14% VAT assuming it eliminates income taxes for under $100k households & spending levels remain relatively flat. If the top tax rate drops from 35% to 25% & all the current income tax rates drop 10% this doesn't work. So I'd assume a 10-14% VAT would mean very little income tax reductions.

$0 - $68K would be a wash... no impact
$68K - $100K - about a 10% reduction in tax burden
$100K - 208K - 28% + 10-14% VAT - 10-14% tax increase
$208K - 372K - 33% + 10-14% VAT - 10-14% tax increase
$372K - above - 35% + 10-14% VAT - 10-14% tax increase

25% VAT - Same assumptions.

$0 - $68K would be a 15% increase in taxes
$68K - $100K - would be a wash... no impact
$100K - 208K - 18% + 25% VAT - 15% tax increase
$208K - 372K - 23% + 25% VAT - 15% tax increase
$372K - above - 25% + 25% VAT - 15% tax increase

Conclusion... the 10-14% VAT with elimination of income tax below the $100K income level has no impact to most middle/lower class brackets and everyone else picks up the tab. The 25% VAT fucks everyone especially the lower income group except the $60-100K group.

Bottom line... fuck anyone in Washington that votes to pass this. I average in the 28-33% bracket and they get too damn much of my money today!!

Igosplut
05-29-2009, 02:18 PM
What we need is progressive taxation with no loopholes for the rich. We HAD national health care in the budget way back in 1947. Problem is, the BCE diverted it all to their war machine.

What about that 13% flat rate tax that was going around in the 90s )(Brown??)

What about that?

Big Train
05-29-2009, 04:18 PM
I didn't "need" you to. You just claimed to have done that, when in fact you hadn't. And I'm always happy.

I'm glad your happy, you should be, lots of good things happening for you. I did not "claim" (please show me where I did) anything, you did.

It's been "considered" before.

But not very seriously...


I can't. I have no answers. I'm looking for them, not providing them.

And let's close US [corporate] Tax Code loopholes, k?

It's a start.

:gulp:

Maybe you can read my orig post in it's entirety now and see that we agree on that. When you get a chance, K?

thome
05-29-2009, 05:14 PM
I know two things about Taxes.

1. We the Americans are taxed first on our income..25 - 42 % depending on how you claim and how much we make.
a. inside this tax is, street repairs, old age fund,senators and congressman wages etc.. general state and federal jobs.... things.

2.Then we are taxed on all consumer goods we purchase they claim this is the tax the retailer needs to be taxed on -because that is his income-...but they,(the seller) just pass that onto us, by inreasing the sales price of whatever goods we are buying from them.

The following is just a few statments..

Increased inflation (consumer goods prices) will not pay the national debt.

Taxing the "Rich" will not do anything possitive.

Taxing "some" more, on the larger amount they make is communism.

Taxation without Representation, plain and simple.

Taxing "some" less, at some income level is already done if you make, I believe, less than 12,000 per year, "the poverty level". They pay -0- taxes.
Except on -everything- they buy.

Here's the Rub....The less income people will have even less buying power.


Best scenario ...Steamline the goverment, and stop accepting that the highest levels of american bussinessmen, cant balance a end of month federal statment book.

Does anyone know what happends when 1/2 of the population is paying the wages of the other half....I leave that up to you all to figure out.

Our issue isn't taxes it's what -THEY- do with them that is not neccesary.

Seshmeister
05-29-2009, 05:38 PM
In the UK VAT allows us to get taxed at the third level - you may have all of this ahead of you. :)

1) We get taxed on our income
2) We get taxed on gas at about $3 a gallon.
3) Now here is the clever bit, we then have to pay VAT on the petrol tax making the total cost over 2/3rds tax or 200% tax.

GAR
05-29-2009, 06:45 PM
And let's close US [corporate] Tax Code loopholes, k?

It's a start.

Deporting all the illegal aliens is a much better start on flushing the waste from the entitlements roster. In California alone it is estimated to be 10 billion combined of both State and Fed entitlements and they're already draining it off.

Also because of it our quality of life rating hovers just above 20% from what our postWW2 generation had, under Obama it's going to be more than halved from that.

SO if you're not busting your ass 24/7 to keep your head afloat, you'll be drawing welfare benefits.

This black fucker is the worst president EVER.

GAR
05-29-2009, 06:49 PM
In the UK VAT allows us to get taxed at the third level - you may have all of this ahead of you. :)

1) We get taxed on our income
2) We get taxed on gas at about $3 a gallon.
3) Now here is the clever bit, we then have to pay VAT on the petrol tax making the total cost over 2/3rds tax or 200% tax.

But your Monarchy and all the aristocratic clique draw six-figure allowances. How about ending that already.. the fuedal system in europe went away along time ago.

Seshmeister
05-29-2009, 07:08 PM
If you don't know anything about the UK or Europe why do you keep posting about it?

Especially nowadays with the interweb and so on. :)

GAR
05-29-2009, 07:12 PM
Maybe I won't be happy until the Royals get the guillotine?

Nickdfresh
05-29-2009, 07:53 PM
Deporting all the illegal aliens is a much better start on flushing the waste from the entitlements roster. In California alone it is estimated to be 10 billion combined of both State and Fed entitlements and they're already draining it off.

Also because of it our quality of life rating hovers just above 20% from what our postWW2 generation had, under Obama it's going to be more than halved from that.

SO if you're not busting your ass 24/7 to keep your head afloat, you'll be drawing welfare benefits.

This black fucker is the worst president EVER.

Most illegals pay taxes - probably more than you!!

And good luck deporting between 10 and 20 million people, dummy....

GAR
05-29-2009, 09:48 PM
You don't pay income tax with fake or stolen ID's now come on..

FORD
05-29-2009, 10:07 PM
You don't pay income tax with fake or stolen ID's now come on..

Which would mean an employer was paying them cash "under the table", meaning said employer was himself a tax dodge. And that's probably taking a lot more from the tax revenue than the "goddamn forriners" themselves are.

sadaist
05-30-2009, 12:06 AM
Most illegals pay taxes


On purchases, yes. But not on income. Nor do they pay for expenses like health care or auto insurance, and many seem to enjoy the prisons here. They take out much, much more than they contribute.




And good luck deporting between 10 and 20 million people, dummy....


Well, we could start by preventing any more from sneaking in, get rid of the criminals, then see where we stand.

GAR
05-30-2009, 12:39 AM
When I was up in Des Moines, the local paper has an unreal police blotter.. it lists the names, and the addresses like this:

Carla Jimenez, 33, arrest for possesion of narcotics and sale to distribute, 112 main st.

Pablo Mendicinas, 23, arrest for public intoxication and spousal assault, 203 Hansen Drive

over and over, over and over at a 5 to 1 ratio - illegal aliens causing 80percent of all the fuckups in the midwest.

I wasn't shocked at my count, I'd have my coffee and read what caught my eye being the offender's home addresses.

The usual stuff in Los Angeles: driving no license or insurance, passing checks fake ID, shoplifting arrest with 2 accomplices (gang theft) over at the Walmart and the Jeweler's prior to that.

OH speaking of Jewelry Shops being hit, when I was in Scottdale they were talking on the news about a gang like that of illegals, "tunneling" thru one business into another.. they get into a nonalarmed retail such as a coinop laundramatte, then cut the telephone lines in both adjacent buildings and burrow thru to the neighboring business.

This group is on trial for doing like 30 friggen businesses, the happy hispanic you guessed it, contributing to all our thankful toleration of his criminal presence.

sadaist
05-30-2009, 04:15 AM
To be fair, many Mexicans do come here for a better life and are very hard working. My apartment in the 90's, I lived next door to the nicest family. Husband, wife, 3 kids and I think an aunt all in a 2 bedroom apartment. One Christmas I was alone & they came over with tons of food. They worked a ton. I also always see the guys with the lawn mowing services busting ass around the neighborhood now. But it seems for every decent Mexican that comes across, you get one criminal. The odds just aren't good enough to allow this to continue the way it has.

GAR
05-30-2009, 05:41 AM
But it seems for every decent Mexican that comes across, you get one criminal.

WRONG you get five.

That one, will knock up another. They will live together with this new one, plus the two other babies from a few other dalliances she's had to boost her Obamulus check.

She'll come home from cleaning offices at night to the cheater, and he hasn't fed the kids so there's violence and they both get carted off to jail, with the three kids going to foster homes till they run away at 13 to join gangs and shoot other immigrants, then knocking up more girls once they come of age repeating this cycle.

But it's okay, because they can lie to the cops but they do not lie to the fag priest they unburden the confession to before mass.

I used to live in an apartment full of 'em, packed in like roaches called "clown houses" here's a group of 19 illegals living in one home in Portland

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cX44jkKIsXs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cX44jkKIsXs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's just disgusting.

sadaist
05-30-2009, 06:42 AM
like roaches

La cucaracha, la cucaracha,
ya no puede caminar
porque no tiene, porque le falta
marijuana que fumar.

:theband:

Nickdfresh
05-30-2009, 07:15 AM
On purchases, yes. But not on income. Nor do they pay for expenses like health care or auto insurance, and many seem to enjoy the prisons here. They take out much, much more than they contribute.




Well, we could start by preventing any more from sneaking in, get rid of the criminals, then see where we stand.

Not true. Most pay to the IRS on their income with a special no-questions asked form. I don't feel like researching it all now...

Oh fuck it, here's an article on it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/

sadaist
05-30-2009, 09:42 AM
Not true. Most pay to the IRS on their income with a special no-questions asked form. I don't feel like researching it all now...

Oh fuck it, here's an article on it:

At tax time, illegal immigrants are paying too - Tax Tactics- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24054024/)

"The Internal Revenue Service doesn't have an estimate of how many illegal immigrants pay income tax."

From your cited article Nick. Yet you claim "most". Shouldn't really expect any different from a source as unbiased as MSNBC, but I've come to expect better from you (based on 90% of your posts that I've read).

That article is all probably, believed, we think, most likely, assumptions, and many. If it's a "no-questions asked form", how the heck do they, specifically you, know that it's coming from illegal aliens? And any people cited that are paying are not the ones committing crimes and filling prisons. I doubt the gang members in Los Angeles are filling out tax returns on their theft or drug deal money.

It's fine if you don't feel like researching a subject, but you shouldn't make statements as fact if you haven't. You can always add an IMO or I think to the beginning of your statements to cover your ass. When you present opinions as fact, others may misread it and take it as fact, continuing the chain of ignorance and spewing the same misinformation as fact.

And for the record, I'm not against law abiding illegal aliens getting some type of fast track to citizenship. I also believe the immigration laws should be reformed to make it easier for people who want to come here to live & work can. But our current system of just having them all sneak across the border is unacceptable.

Big Train
05-30-2009, 11:39 AM
I wouldn't mind having my local taxes lightened to the tune of 1 Billion dollars a year either, just in my county:

(I realize this guy has an axe to grind, but the facts are the facts)
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION (http://antonovich.co.la.ca.us/issues/illegalimmigration/index.html)

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
ON LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

While legal immigration has provided a positive benefit for our County economically and culturally, illegal immigration reduces the quality of life and is an affront to those who follow the law.

Illegal immigration causes American citizens and legal aliens to pay more for police protection, classrooms to educate our children, and hospital and healthcare costs.

In public safety, healthcare and public social services, illegals cost Los Angeles County taxpayers over one billion dollars a year.

Illegal immigrants cost Los Angeles County taxpayers annually:
Over $400 million annually in health care
Over $250 million in our criminal justice system.
Nearly $230 million annually in CALWORKS welfare payments
Over $190 million in food stamps.
Over $430 million in total welfare allocations
Nearly 100,000 children of 60,000 undocumented parents receive aid – for a total of 160,000. If incorporated into a city, it would be the 6th largest city in Los Angeles county.

Los Angeles County is home to almost 12&#37; of the country’s illegal immigrant population, the most of any county in the nation.

Like Los Angeles County, the State of California is also struggling with the burden of illegal immigration; one in fifteen people residing in California is an illegal immigrant costing our State nearly $3 billion a year.

You'll notice these numbers don't even cover education, which is easily 3-400 million more.

Nitro Express
05-30-2009, 02:57 PM
I agree.

There would be HUGE lobbies against this move. And we all know who REALLY runs D.C.

The Lobbyists.

There will never be green energy, single payer healthcare, or tax reform WITHOUT lobby reform first

:gulp:

Sadly it's true. We have the best govt. money can buy and it's all about the money and not the best interest of the people. The fat cats like war, unaccountable central banks, monopolies, and taxes that benefit them.

We can't keep going on business as usual though. If we do, we are headed for major civil unrest in this country. We still can fix things politically but the time is getting short.

kwame k
05-30-2009, 03:15 PM
[B][U]
And for the record, I'm not against law abiding illegal aliens getting some type of fast track to citizenship. I also believe the immigration laws should be reformed to make it easier for people who want to come here to live & work can. But our current system of just having them all sneak across the border is unacceptable.

The laws on the books and the red tape they have to go through is just plain stupid. Also, if we made it so employers get hammered when they get busted employing illegals and not make the fines less than the savings they get by employing illegals, that would go a long way too.

The fact is........we should make it easy for people who want to come here and work. We could tax them and have documentation on them, too.

GAR
05-30-2009, 05:57 PM
We don't owe the fucking MEXICANS shit!

They ALL gotta be deported, what THEE FWAK?!?

GAR
05-30-2009, 06:02 PM
You'll notice these numbers don't even cover education, which is easily 3-400 million more.

Not when some schools in LAUSD have a ratio of 4-to-1 anchor-babies enrolled in a school district with an annual budget the size of most small nations!

That's $30 billion. THIRTY. Thirty billion fuckin' dollars. And if even half of all kids in Los Angeles schools are illegal, that means we are paying 15 billion to educate them.

You may say "well, thats' a bit extreme" but no.. that's what the budget is. The budget is that much!

Half of thirty, fifteen. It is what it is, so divide it by headcount and that's the cost-per to educate children in LA County. And it's just the biggest snowjob by all ALL the polititicians who are lying to the people that it's permissible adinfinitum because the state is filing for bankruptcy.

I say get them all out, every one of 'em. Republican AND Democrat. They all lied, get 'em out. Deport every last politician who fucked us on this, along with the illegal aliens AND their anchor-children with 'em.

GAR
05-30-2009, 06:35 PM
If Nancy Pelosi had her way to "reduce costs" she'd abort them all. Her words.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z_PTqvyzwRg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z_PTqvyzwRg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

She fuckin' SAID it. Play it, hear it. She thinks killing the unborn, will stimulate the economy.


(1:10)
Stephanopoulus: We also heard from Congressman Bohner in that meeting today again, that alot of the spending you just talked about doesn't even meet the same test you just talked about.

(clip: Bohner (R)Ohio, "We have to find the package that's the right size..")

Stephanopoulus: ..now, hundreds of millions of dollars to expand Family Planning Services. How is that "stimulus"?

Pelosi: "The ehr, family planning services reduce costs.. it reduces costs. The states are in terrible, ehr, fiscal budget ehr, crisis now.. and, and part of what we do here now for childrens' (throws up the Invisible Shield of Children) health, and education, wuh.. some of those (pro-abortion) 'elements' that are there are to help the states meet their (State's, not the children's) financial needs.

Pelosi: One of those initiatives you mentioned, uh uh contraception is uh, well, reduce 'costs' to the state (meaning killing the unborns via abortions). And to the Federal government, too! (surprised look on her face inidicating surprise she spat it out cohesively)

Stephanopoulus: So no apologies for that, then?

Pelosi: No apolgies, no! We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy: welfare, foodstamps, some of the initiatives you just mentioned with the ehm, uh economists, have told us from right to left you get better bang-for-the-buck.."

She just appended the abortion funding question with an incomplete statement about entitlements such as welfare and unemployment.

Either she's schizophrenic, or a crafty witch and I think since she hasn't missed hardly a day in her whole Congressional career, it's very very intentional to dodge the question.

The question was "why millions of dollars for abortion" and she didn't answer it because she came THIS close to stating that killing the unborn releases the government from provisions for them.

GAR
05-30-2009, 06:38 PM
Use of the select word "contraception" in place of "aborted children" is incorrect.

Contraception is a prevented pregnancy, and a state-paid abortion is the termination of one.

This is totally intentional, on her part or she would have had it edited, being the #3 most politician in the US.

standin
05-30-2009, 06:57 PM
Screw off, Gar. Take IUDs off the market And then life begins at conception might hold water.
It is unethical or hardship to terminate before 2 months. And wrong after. And a death when the entity can thrive with normal care and concern.

FORD
05-30-2009, 07:28 PM
Maybe I won't be happy until the Royals get the guillotine?

Another implied death threat against the President, bitch?

Seriously, you're going to get your library shut down. Which I could care less about, but I'm sure a lot of people who would want to use the facilities for legitimate purposes will be upset.

I'm more worried about the Secret Service monitoring this website because of your shit. Sarge doesn't need the harassment.

Nickdfresh
05-30-2009, 07:59 PM
Use of the select word "contraception" in place of "aborted children" is incorrect.

Contraception is a prevented pregnancy, and a state-paid abortion is the termination of one.

This is totally intentional, on her part or she would have had it edited, being the #3 most politician in the US.

You and Katydid should get a room, because you believe in exactly the same things...

Or are you sort of a priest mindset, in that you need unwanted children to be born so you can exploit them later in life?

Nickdfresh
05-30-2009, 08:00 PM
LOL GARydid, the Catholic sage of morality!! :biggrin:

Nickdfresh
05-30-2009, 08:02 PM
Another implied death threat against the President, bitch?

Seriously, you're going to get your library shut down. Which I could care less about, but I'm sure a lot of people who would want to use the facilities for legitimate purposes will be upset.

I'm more worried about the Secret Service monitoring this website because of your shit. Sarge doesn't need the harassment.


Anyone makes a threat against this president, or any other, the same rules apply. I will forward your IP and post to the Secret Service and the DHS...

I was fucking around about GAR's IP last night - but if I see a recurring theme and fucking cutesy and playful semantics, I'm fucking Pinkertining...

GAR
05-31-2009, 06:39 PM
Another implied death threat against the President, bitch?

Seriously, you're going to get your library shut down. Which I could care less about, but I'm sure a lot of people who would want to use the facilities for legitimate purposes will be upset.

I'm more worried about the Secret Service monitoring this website because of your shit. Sarge doesn't need the harassment.

"Royals," you backslidden Baptist-claiming heathen.

You worry no such thing, and you really fear no such thing. You're a fuckin' liar and using this forum as a personal attack.

You should not be a mod. You pulled this shit in the politics forum at DDLR and look at where its at now, Louser.

If you cannot stay on topic, make an attack thread all by itself to gloat over all in all your cleverness, and just like the one Nick did and just like that one I'll stay out of it.

kwame k
05-31-2009, 08:24 PM
"Royals," you backslidden Baptist-claiming heathen.

You worry no such thing, and you really fear no such thing. You're a fuckin' liar and using this forum as a personal attack.

You should not be a mod. You pulled this shit in the politics forum at DDLR and look at where its at now, Louser.

If you cannot stay on topic, make an attack thread all by itself to gloat over all in all your cleverness, and just like the one Nick did and just like that one I'll stay out of it.

Now if we could get you to stay out of the Front Line altogether, it'd be like x-mass and a birthday all in one......hell, if we could get you to leave here completely it would be like winning the lottery.

You are the biggest idiot racist scum I have ever seen.

si-gar suicide is a solution.

thome
05-31-2009, 11:08 PM
Dang.....One less Taxpayer... one more -25 to life tax burden- just occured...

Wichita abortion provider George Tiller shot to death at Wichita church - Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/703/story/1225769.html)

hideyoursheep
06-01-2009, 05:05 AM
Maybe you can read my orig post in it's entirety now and see that we agree on that. When you get a chance, K?

:lol:

What a pretentious cunt!

sadaist
06-01-2009, 05:35 AM
Dang.....One less Taxpayer... one more -25 to life tax burden- just occured...

Wichita abortion provider George Tiller shot to death at Wichita church - Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/703/story/1225769.html)

You're looking at it the wrong way. Just think of all the unborn taxpayers this person has now saved.

thome
06-01-2009, 08:49 AM
You're looking at it the wrong way. Just think of all the unborn taxpayers this person has now saved.

I can see that, but isn't it more like the dead doctor and his recent personal relationship with his own late term abortion....I am sure he would be a advocate ....

GAR
06-01-2009, 01:28 PM
A VAT tax is just the thing to keep India and China's cheap exports out of the country.

Gee what would the US do, gosh, we'd all have to learn how to walk without cars.. work with our hands, and do things for ourselves.. gee.

That would suck.

LoungeMachine
06-01-2009, 01:44 PM
Would public libraries remain open?

Would hate to lose your contributions to the forum.

:gulp:

Seshmeister
06-01-2009, 01:47 PM
A VAT tax is just the thing to keep India and China's cheap exports out of the country.

Gee what would the US do, gosh, we'd all have to learn how to walk without cars.. work with our hands, and do things for ourselves.. gee.

That would suck.

It doesn't make much sense to say VAT Tax since VAT stands for Value Added Tax so you are saying Tax Tax.

In any case I think you're getting mixed up with VAT and import duty. VAT would not distinguish between imported goods and those made in the US it would be levied against both equally.

Also I think you meant Indian and Chinese imports not exports.

Apart from that it was a great post... :)

sadaist
06-01-2009, 03:16 PM
It doesn't make much sense to say VAT Tax since VAT stands for Value Added Tax so you are saying Tax Tax.



We're just lazy with language and use what flows best & easiest. Same with on a cars VIN (vehicle identification number). Always referred to as VIN number....number number.

thome
06-01-2009, 03:46 PM
opps wrong thread just some more silly anyway my bad...