I don't doubt that Bush favors VAT over Income. Idea is to penalize consumption, not savings. I just don't believe that it is part of current tax plan.
Andy -----Original Message----- From: Mike Randolph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:05 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for Hello Andy, http://www.ctj.org/html/bush.htm (from his texas days.).... Note where they explain where he gives tax cuts to corps equaling 4.8 billion, then up's the sales taxes to make up for the corporate loss...After all is said and done it nets to only a one billion tax cut... for Texas....at least until the vat (tax) goes up. At the beginning of the 1997 legislative session Bush outlined a complicated tax plan based on the task force's recommendations. It would have repealed the Corporate Franchise Tax (Texas's tax on business profit and value) and lowered property taxes. These cuts would have reduced government revenue by about $4.8 billion for 1999. To partially offset the revenue loss, he proposed raising the state sales tax from 6.25 percent to 6.75 percent (additional local sales taxes in Texas range up to 2 percent) *** and adopting a Value Added Tax ("VATs" are common in Europe and are usually considered to operate primarily as hidden sales taxes). This replacement revenue would have amounted to $3.7 billion. ***** Thus, in 1999 the net tax cut would have been a little more than $1 billion. In 1998, as the plan's provisions were being phased in, the cut would have been $340 million. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22bush+tax+plan%22+% 2Bvat A quick google search reveals his lust for this tax every transaction.... method of tax.. In Europe the Vat taxes started at about 7 percent and quickly rose to 15%... They start with a low number to sell the 'system' and then over time just like in Vegas ...they get it back. Kind Regards, Mike Randolph BTW: I'm a Republican (Not picking on bush) , who actually believes both parties are only selling 1/2 the constitution. The constitution guarantee's both freedom for tax without representation and freedom of will. The Democrats are trying to control our wallets and the Republicans want to control our minds. So in reality either party is working for the 'system' and I'm quite sure they laugh about this in smoke filled rooms, drinking bottles of Johnny Blue while spanking their latest intern. .. >Any other source for this view? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mike Randolph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 7:15 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: RE: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > >Hello Everyone, > >I like this list already, the tax cuts are really a cover for VAT (look at >this HAND tax returns, ignore this other hand VAT taxes). Please note at >the bottom where Warren Buffet explains he will save 300 million a year but >his secretaries taxes are going up :). So enjoy your refund now, they'll >be back to get it with VAT. Sorry about the formatting, there is a link to >the article at the bottom. > >Bush Tax Package >Guts Middle Class >By Joan Veon >� 2003 WorldNetDaily.com >5-28-3 > > >Using tactics of deceit and distortion, President Bush will sign a tax bill >that was literally dictated by him to Congress and passed by the Senate >late last week while the writers were still crafting it. What is being put >into action will not only completely gut our entire tax code but will add a >level of taxation that heretofore was only known by the children of Israel >when pharaoh commanded them to make bricks without straw. The tax >deductions have been sold to the American people as creating more jobs but >the truth of the matter is that Congress feels you and I are not paying >enough in taxes. What Bush has done, Clinton could not have ever gotten >away with: a tax on everything we buy - otherwise known as a Value Added >Tax - for you and me. If you think you pay a lot in tax now, just wait and >see what the Republicans - or should I say, "neocons" have in store for us. >Let me give you a glimpse. First, a Value-Added Tax system is a more >"purer" form of tax because it is structured like the morning dew - it will >tax everything and every process . For example, currently you are not taxed >on the activity (not the gain but the activity) of buying or selling a >house. Under a VAT, we will be taxed. Currently you are not taxed for the >professional services of our doctor and dentist - those services will have >a tax. The basic structure of a VAT is that it is essentially equivalent to >a tax on wages and pure profits - in other words, it is a superior form of >tax. In fact, it is a "vertical" tax - depending on how the VAT is >structured, every phase of manufacturing and production will be taxed. >Currently it is not taxed. For example, the farmer who grows sheep will pay >a tax to buy the sheep, then, when he sells the sheered wool, the weaver >who buys it from the farmer will pay a tax on that purchase. When the >weaver who spins the wool into fabric sells it to a pants factory, the >processed wool will be taxed. When the factory sells the pants to the >department store, another tax will be levied. At each phase, while there >may be some offset in the tax between the various stages of production, you >will be taxed on the cost of the shirt which also includes the tax that was >paid at each phase. Will the price of the shirt increase - absolutely! So >will the cost of living. According to the International Monetary Fund, the >VAT is a more modern tax, providing the ability to tax each phase of >production and also the turnover of goods and services, thus increasing the >cost to live while providing a greater income stream to the government. A >VAT is basically sustainable development at its finest. Government can't >continue spending unless it increases its income stream! Now this brings me >to another point - the need for government to increase their income. Do you >remember John Maynard Keynes and his socialistic "Keynesian economics"? >Essentially, back in 1933 when America went into a major depression, >Franklin Roosevelt relied on the "innovative" thinking of Keynes who >recommended deficit spending to create new jobs. Well, 70 years later, >every level of government in the United States is broke. Currently, the >U.S. government is $7 trillion in debt. Democrats, who have opposed this >bill from the beginning, project that under the weight of the huge tax >reductions being given to the very wealthy, that by 2013 when it is fully >phased in, our debt will rise to $12 trillion or $36,000 for every person >in the United States. Basically the July tax rebates we are going to >receive will help contribute to this figure. Nothing like paying one credit >card with cash from another! Furthermore, instead of you and I paying taxes >and receiving a service, we now live in a time when our government is >privatizing (selling its assets to reduce its debt), changing the code so >it can increase its income while reducing services to you and me. Under the >current tax system, mortgage interest and charitable contributions are >deductible. These will have to be sacrificed to provide the government with >a greater and constant income stream. Simply put, a "pure tax" is basically >"squeezing" the turnip - which is you and me. So how does a government with >a VAT increase revenue? In order to switch to a VAT from our current system >of taxing income, the tax brackets of the rich will be reduced from 38.5 >percent gradually over a 10-year period to the targeted 21-27 percent VAT >rate. This level of taxation is the level that will produce the same amount >of tax under our current system. At the same time, the tax brackets of >those who have an income of $1 million and above is being reduced, those >who currently don't pay tax because they have too little income will have >be subjected to an increasing tax bracket which may start out at 10 percent >but will have to rise to meet the brackets of the extremely wealthy at >21-27 percent. Is your back breaking yet? So - what if, in this time of >never-ending war on terrorism, the government still does not have enough >income? Well, then the rate can be increased. For example, in 1973 when >England introduced the VAT, it started at 10 percent ... today it is up to >18.5 percent. > >Lastly, the president and his cabinet are unwilling to even admit that they >are gutting the current system and putting a VAT in place that will benefit >those like Warren Buffet who calculated that he will save $300 million >while his secretary's tax rate will increase. This tax bill should be more >accurately called, "The Gutting of the Middle Class." Joan Veon >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a certified financial planner and is president of >Veon Financial Services, Inc., an investment advisory firm. Visit her >website, WomensGroup.org http://www.womensgroup.org > >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32765 > > > > At 07:03 PM 5/29/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Dana, > > > >High rollers who get dividends, and I am not talking about you or me, > >reinvest them. This includes pension funds and Mutual funds. They tend to > >reallocate to new companies in order to keep their investments >diversified(I > >think). > > > >Andy > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 6:13 PM > >To: CF-Community > >Subject: Re: What the Bush tax cut could have paid for > > > > > >Andy, was it you that had the argument about retained earnings and how the > >dividend tax cut would foster innovation? I seem to have been deleted it... > >but wondered what your answer who be to this guy > > > >http://www.cbpp.org/1-10-03tax.htm > > > >A Google on "results dividend tax cut" also turns up a url that says CPAs > >are split about 50-50 on the results of this cut. I still have an open mind > >but I think the people who are going to get enough to make a difference are > >going to be those who wont need the money and will bank it... > > > >Dana > > > >On Thu, 29 May 2003 12:30:48 -0500, Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > > > > That has always been the rich versus poor argument: The poor get a > > > bigger > > > percentage pay cut, but because of their income, get much less back. > > > > > > I don't see how if you believe that net dollars is the correct > > > measurement > > > that you could ever justify tax cuts. By definition, all tax cuts will > > > always benefit the rich versus the poor. > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
