You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


National Sales Tax Chatter Draws Fierce Opposition
Now that the federal government is doling out billions in stimulus spending and bailouts, and looking for billions more for health care reform, the prospect of a national sales tax could be gaining some traction.
By Judson Berger

Thursday, May 28, 2009
As lawmakers toy with the idea of an across-the-board sales tax on just about everything, tax reform advocates are starting to drum up opposition with the same fervor they employed during last month's anti-tax tea parties.

The idea of a national sales tax was once unlikely. But now that the federal government is doling out billions in stimulus spending and bailouts, and looking for billions more for health care reform, the prospect could be gaining some traction.

The frenzy over the idea kicked up after a Washington Post article Wednesday reported that Congress is starting to pay closer attention to this largely academic proposal and that the Obama administration, though shushing speculation, is soliciting advise from supporters of the idea.

"It should certainly raise alarm bells that they think they can inject it into the debate," said Phil Kerpen, policy director at Americans for Prosperity.

The value-added tax, or VAT, as it is called, amounts to a tax-on-everything -- or TOE, for the acronym-inclined. It's a tax on goods that's applied in pieces throughout the chain of production and distribution and results in an increase in the cost of virtually everything you buy.

Aside from raising revenue for the government, the move could have a number of things going for it, say proponents -- it's tough to evade, it's simple by comparison to the income tax and it encourages saving.

Some conservatives have called for something similar -- the so-called Fair Tax -- that would replace the federal income tax system with a national retail sales tax.

But critics of the VAT say it would almost certainly not be implemented as a replacement for the income tax system -- rather, it would be just another tax, on top of the income tax, the state sales tax and everything else.

"This isn't a tax reform proposal that the White House is talking about. This is a new source of income for the government," said Max Pappas, public policy vice president at FreedomWorks. "The government needs big taxes and we've got big government, so now they're trying to decide how to pay for it."

It's unclear how far along the idea is on Capitol Hill.

"That's not something that I understand is under discussion," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday. A White House official also told the Post it's "unlikely" to be tapped to pay for health care reform.

But Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, was open to that idea, and the article noted that one of Budget Director Peter Orszag's health care advisers is a VAT advocate and Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who's now an Obama economic adviser, is at least willing to hear arguments.

Leonard Burman, co-director of the Tax Policy Center, wrote in a Virginia Tax Review article last month that the tax-on-everything could finance health care reform, and could reach a rate of 25 percent.

One of the chief criticisms of the consumption tax is that it is regressive -- it would hurt the poor the most. Because lower-income earners use a greater percentage of their income for consumption, the tax could end up being a bigger burden on the poor.

But Burman argued in a separate article for the review that using the revenue from the tax for health care would offset this effect, since "the voucher would be worth more than the VAT tax paid by most households."

If that's the best-case scenario, critics see a worst-case scenario that is devastating. Though the tax is used throughout Europe, opponents cite Europe's rapid growth in government over the past several decades as one of its potent negative side effects.

Pappas said the system would be exploited to grow government over the decades, since the tax is relatively easy to obscure.

"This is a big deal," he said. "This fundamentally changes the size of government indefinitely, permanently, and you can see that by the expansion in Europe over the past 40 years."

Plus it could have the unfortunate effect of discouraging spending in a time of recession -- effectively serving as an anti-stimulus.

Critics saw Wednesday's article as a trial balloon, which may or may not find its way into real-world negotiations over revenue raising.

It's not so outrageous considering proposals that are already being discussed. A memo circulated at a recent Senate Finance Committee meeting floated the possibility of a federal excise tax on sugary drinks -- not just sodas, but fruit and vegetable drinks, energy drinks, ice teas, iced coffees and flavored milk drinks.

An across-the-board consumption tax could make that look pleasant by comparison, since it's more than a sin tax -- it's a tax on virtuous and moral-neutral items as well. Small-government advocates, though, have pledged to fight both ideas.

"A VAT is among the most regressive tax schemes that can be imposed, and is a direct violation of Obama's no-tax-hike promise," Ryan Ellis, tax policy director at Americans for Tax Reform, wrote Wednesday on his group's Web site. "VATs are a gateway drug to more government spending."

rosco 357

well this has been on my radar for many years, i will not address it for healthcare, and debt payoff, but i will address it, just for replacing the income tax, this article seemed to be against it although i got a tad confused with is it for healthcare or income tax replacement. the first time i ever heard of it, the consumption tax, which taxes everything at every level, i think things bought between businesses and a sales tax, . i was for it. im not for the flat tax, if u study it, it only lowers taxes for the wealthy, it would not be like 10 percent but much more, more than the percent i pay. but back to the consumption tax, like i said the first i heard of it was a ronald reagan idea. one of the main reasons, is now ppl work and dont pay income tax, they work under the table, i see it every day, i have seen companies pay under the table not just roofer or painters or things of that nature. SO ronald reagan claimed it would end that and he stated if the underground economy could be harnessed there would be no deficit, but that was years ago, he was for it, most every one i know that use to get layed off, worked under the table.. and drew unemployment insurance, and worked also, but did not show income, , this was ronald Regan's view. but as we all know changing the tax code is major, and probably will never happen.


Taxes are coming in all directions , that will be the only way to pay us out of this debt the country has been placed in and will continue to grow for years. Give it time to surface we will be taxed to death.

rosco 357

yep congress will be very busy, if and they probably will get al franken in the senate,and suspose to, the dems will have 60 votes a super majority, if all dems hold together, so who knows whats coming, we will see, they are talking of making japan nuclear to counter korea, i imagine we would play a part in that i heard on the news, may just selll them like nuclear rockets or nuclear cruise missles, it was not specific,

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum