[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by TunerSteve

Hence we get a populace that grows weary of politicians in general. Every once in awhile a young energetic candidate comes along like Obama, making promises and hope springs up that perhaps, just perhaps this one is different.

Crash.

Or, perhaps, expectations are set *too* high, and a politician is doomed to disappoint no matter what.

Raising taxes on a gallon of gasoline, is raising taxes on anyone that buys gasoline. Perhaps he doesn't expect those making less than 250 grand a year to drive at all. Leave the highways to the elite and those making less than that to use mass transit.

Hyperbole at best. Let's say that the gas tax goes up $0.25: that would raise gas prices from 6 months ago to about $2.25. But wait, gas is about $3.00.

It seems that the major burden on the driver isn't the tax.

Further: an increased tax-per gallon is not an increase in taxes you pay if you are using less gallons.

Finally: an increase in one tax is not an increase in your taxes if there are decreases elsewhere making a net negative.

And, of course, no such tax has yet been passed.

[nolidad]

But hey: Show me the bill Obama has introduced or signed.

From HIs own mouth :

Cap and Trade Bill Passes House vote: Obama Says Electricity Rates to “Skyrocket” - Stingray: a blog for salty Christians

He declares utility rates will sj=kyrocket under his now house passed cap and trade bill>

As for VAT not being regressive against the poor:
From the Washington Post--who could never be accussed of right leaning.

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look - washingtonpost.com
They don't like the idea that much NOW- but it is a national sales tax at every level and affects the poor the most as their incvome goes more for goods than the wealthy.

Obama Floats VAT Tax
To Pay for Socialized Medicine

I've given some of my examples. What's your source for this claim?

Well simple if the fed raises the gas tax 26 cents/gal. as proposed by one politician- then the tax on gas is increased- hence a tax increase. If the cost per gallon goes down- that is a net reduction in cost but taxes still go up.


On taxing health care benefits:

NY Times another not right leaning paper.

NYT: Obama open to taxing health benefits - The New York Times- msnbc.com
Unions? Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Proposal (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
Union workers would be exempt from Dem health care tax | Washington Examiner

It matters not that you don't believe me-- it is all over the news all the ideas being floated to raise taxes on the middle class through direct and indirect means.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

From HIs own mouth :

Cap and Trade Bill Passes House vote: Obama Says Electricity Rates to “Skyrocket” - Stingray: a blog for salty Christians

He declares utility rates will sj=kyrocket under his now house passed cap and trade bill>

Awesome. A supporting link. Thanks.

Unfortunately, you've already brought up the real estimated costs (congress has it at $175 per person per year), and that's not really "skyrocketing".

Further, I live in the one metro area where government-regulated pollution reduction for energy has actually been done (Tampa Bay, TECO, ordered by the EPA under Clinton). It did cost money to upgrade the power-plants (one was converted to natural gas, the other was modified to filter pollution and re-use waste heat). The net cost to the electricity consumer?

zero.

Turns out the efficiency improvements offset the costs... and I can tell you from 1995 to 1998 there was a drastic improvement in air quality on non-breezy days.

There are, of course, costs to improving... at least in the short terms. In addition to Tampa Bay, I can't help but think of the lessons of the American car companies who skipped spending money on their own infrastructure improvements and were soon more expensive than the Japanese who reaped the long-term benefits of their own investing.

As for VAT not being regressive against the poor:
From the Washington Post--who could never be accussed of right leaning.

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look - washingtonpost.com
They don't like the idea that much NOW- but it is a national sales tax at every level and affects the poor the most as their incvome goes more for goods than the wealthy.

So you oppose sales-tax (and the proverbial "flat tax"). OK. I think that's arguable, though I'm not sure where I fall on it. I was simply asserting that VAT was not more regressive than sales tax.

Well simple if the fed raises the gas tax 26 cents/gal. as proposed by one politician- then the tax on gas is increased- hence a tax increase. If the cost per gallon goes down- that is a net reduction in cost but taxes still go up.

Unless other taxes go down.

On taxing health care benefits:

NY Times another not right leaning paper.

NYT: Obama open to taxing health benefits - The New York Times- msnbc.com

It says he's "open to it"

"several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so."

But what you keep glossing over, other than that there is no actual bill for us to discuss, is that basically every plan offsets that tax with a tax credit. The idea, it appears, is to tax what McCain called "gold-plated health care plans". I suppose like how we don't tax groceries, but do restaurants.

Evin I didn't oppose McCain on taxing above a certain level (what I opposed him on was moving to "shopping for private insurance").

[nolidad]

Unless other taxes go down.

Which he has yet to support publicly to offset the increase he is proposing.

Unfortunately, you've already brought up the real estimated costs (congress has it at $175 per person per year), and that's not really "skyrocketing".

Well if it passes the senate we will see where in the range of $175- $3000 per family/year it falls- it still is a tax hike.

Turns out the efficiency improvements offset the costs... and I can tell you from 1995 to 1998 there was a drastic improvement in air quality on non-breezy days.

There are, of course, costs to improving... at least in the short terms. In addition to Tampa Bay, I can't help but think of the lessons of the American car companies who skipped spending money on their own infrastructure improvements and were soon more expensive than the Japanese who reaped the long-term benefits of their own investing.

No on eis arguing the improvement in air quality- Florida is a better area to see zero sum cost because it tends to a much newer infrastructure- the NOrtheast and Midwest will be hit with exhorbitant cost hikes- this has already been forewrned both by govt. officials and the utility companies-- much much work needs to be done inthe northeast.

So you oppose sales-tax (and the proverbial "flat tax"). OK. I think that's arguable, though I'm not sure where I fall on it. I was simply asserting that VAT was not more regressive than sales tax.

Well VAT is just as regressive as a national sales tax. The cost of the increase in th evalue of the goods is passed on every step of the way and so is borne by the consumer ultimately. And as lower income people pay a greater % of their income in purchasing goods - they get hit the hardest with this hidden sales tax as many pundits callit.

It says he's "open to it"
"several advisers say that while he will not propose changing the tax-free status of employee health benefits, neither will he oppose it if Congress does so."
But what you keep glossing over, other than that there is no actual bill for us to discuss, is that basically every plan offsets that tax with a tax credit. The idea, it appears, is to tax what McCain called "gold-plated health care plans". I suppose like how we don't tax groceries, but do restaurants.

Well I saw Mccain campaign on giving people a tax credit to offset the taxingof their haelth plans, for Obama the only thing I have seen onthe news in these trial balloons he is allowing to be floated is that he will not tax th eprotion of health plans that are below the avge fed. employee benefit- which in one article I linked to was est. at $4,300/yr. So unless you have sources I have yet to discover- there is no offset other than not taxing what already is not taxed already with no promise of an offset (except for ht eunion benefits).

Ultimately- Obama promised tax cuts for all who make under $250,000/ year- I have seen no plan for cuts anywhere and my family most assuredly has plenty of room to go before we even get near the $250,000 limit.

Whatr I have seen since he has taken office is proposals, talks, trial balloons floating the ideas of raising taxes in several areas andd things like a VAT hurts the poor the most.

It may offset trade deficits, but only because it makes foreign goods more expensive for Americans to buy because they are VATted at the shores and trhus that cost is passed on to the consumer.

If Obama increases say the child deduction, or personal exemptions, gives the marriage deduction equal par with 2 singles (the so caslled marriage penalty) or offers tax credits for those under 250K then he will be proposing a 0 sum game. But as of yet - no balloons are floating onhow he plans to offset the tax increase balloons.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well if it passes the senate we will see where in the range of $175- $3000 per family/year it falls- it still is a tax hike.

Between what was estimated and what opponents lied and said was estimated? Those don't have equal credulity.

Nor are permits properly taxes.

Nor did Obama say he would not raise any taxes.

Nor are you including the cost savings, which have not been quantified and which could easily result in a net lowering of costs (in the case of TECO, the costs and savings canceled out).

Nor are you acknowledging the real costs of not capping pollution (if nothing else, there are many health costs).

Nor are you acknowledging that the move away from (for example) dirty coal is necessary sooner or later.

No on eis arguing the improvement in air quality- Florida is a better area to see zero sum cost because it tends to a much newer infrastructure- the NOrtheast and Midwest will be hit with exhorbitant cost hikes- this has already been forewrned both by govt. officials and the utility companies-- much much work needs to be done inthe northeast.

But most of those warnings are coming from people opposing the legislation neh? The only quasi-independent group said "$175 minus whatever efficiency savings occur by 2020".

Well VAT is just as regressive as a national sales tax. The cost of the increase in th evalue of the goods is passed on every step of the way and so is borne by the consumer ultimately. And as lower income people pay a greater % of their income in purchasing goods - they get hit the hardest with this hidden sales tax as many pundits callit.

So your opposition is to national sales tax (whether VAT or not). OK.

If we look only at American consumers of American products then I agree that sales tax (whether VAT or not) is regressive. It's something I've argued in opposing flat tax.

I think that VAT is the less regressive form of sales tax, not the more regressive. Assuming I set for the same overall tax rate between the two: the poor American buying an American product will see no difference.

The poor American buying a non-American product will see less tax under VAT than flat sales tax (some steps are not taxed by the US). That will be offset by the non-American purchaser of American goods paying a partial tax (the VAT costs accumulated in the US), as well as wealthy purchasers who would presumably avoid non-VAT by something like buying offshore.

It seems that, *if* we do a national sales tax: VAT is more equitable than what most states currently do. I don't assert a position on whether we should have a national sales tax at all. My instinct is "no", but I'm open to information.

Well I saw Mccain campaign on giving people a tax credit to offset the taxingof their haelth plans, for Obama the only thing I have seen onthe news in these trial balloons he is allowing to be floated is that he will not tax th eprotion of health plans that are below the avge fed. employee benefit- which in one article I linked to was est. at $4,300/yr. So unless you have sources I have yet to discover- there is no offset other than not taxing what already is not taxed already with no promise of an offset (except for ht eunion benefits).

There are no sources at all. No proposal has been put down. You are just listening to some people's guesses.

How much would McCain's credit have been? Let's say it was $4,300. What's the difference between taxing it and then crediting it back and not taxing it?

Ultimately- Obama promised tax cuts for all who make under $250,000/ year- I have seen no plan for cuts anywhere and my family most assuredly has plenty of room to go before we even get near the $250,000 limit.

But you haven't paid your 2009 or 2010 taxes yet either.

It may offset trade deficits, but only because it makes foreign goods more expensive for Americans to buy because they are VATted at the shores and trhus that cost is passed on to the consumer.

You say that like it's bad.

If Obama increases say the child deduction, or personal exemptions, gives the marriage deduction equal par with 2 singles (the so caslled marriage penalty) or offers tax credits for those under 250K then he will be proposing a 0 sum game. But as of yet - no balloons are floating onhow he plans to offset the tax increase balloons.

You are actually already receiving the benifits of one tax reduction (assuming you get a paycheck). Obama Announces Tax Reductions

But it's not very reasonable of you to complaining about tax increases that might happen and compare then to tax reductions that haven't happened yet. I'd like to stick to actual propositions, and we need to put them in the same context (existing vs proposed).

[nolidad]

Between what was estimated and what opponents lied and said was estimated? Those don't have equal credulity.

Nor are permits properly taxes.

Nor did Obama say he would not raise any taxes.

Nor are you including the cost savings, which have not been quantified and which could easily result in a net lowering of costs (in the case of TECO, the costs and savings canceled out).

Nor are you acknowledging the real costs of not capping pollution (if nothing else, there are many health costs).

Nor are you acknowledging that the move away from (for example) dirty coal is necessary sooner or later

.

1. Well given the senates going to pass cap and trade we will find out.

2. Paying th egovt. for permits are taxes with another name.

3. But we have no basis for knowing if the TECO savings will be the same in other areas.

4. But these aren't taxes- health savings are great but Obama still said he would give people making under $250K a tax cut- and all he has doen so far is float tax and fee increases.

5. While you asre touting all these savings- let us notr forget the costs of the multi trillion dollar bailouts and the new moujntain of debt Obama has passes- these will show up inhigher taxes, decreased productivity, and higher inflation- the hidden tax for his aggressive agenda.

6. Well when we get China to move ffrom dirty coal- I am all for it as well. We are burning cleaner than we ever have as a nation, with the scrubbers and clean coal technoilogy- net emissions have dropped alot over 50 years ago.

But most of those warnings are coming from people opposing the legislation neh? The only quasi-independent group said "$175 minus whatever efficiency savings occur by 2020".

Actually these warnings are coming from National Grid, WMECO, Sens. Kennedy, Kerry, REp. Olver, REp Neal-- can't say these extreme lefties are opposing the legislation. The Northeast is far more involved in coal and oil than the rest of thenation-- it is very cost intense to convert the northeasdt- unless we went back to nukes.

So your opposition is to national sales tax (whether VAT or not). OK.

If we look only at American consumers of American products then I agree that sales tax (whether VAT or not) is regressive. It's something I've argued in opposing flat tax.

I think that VAT is the less regressive form of sales tax, not the more regressive. Assuming I set for the same overall tax rate between the two: the poor American buying an American product will see no difference.

The poor American buying a non-American product will see less tax under VAT than flat sales tax (some steps are not taxed by the US). That will be offset by the non-American purchaser of American goods paying a partial tax (the VAT costs accumulated in the US), as well as wealthy purchasers who would presumably avoid non-VAT by something like buying offshore.

It seems that, *if* we do a national sales tax: VAT is more equitable than what most states currently do. I don't assert a position on whether we should have a national sales tax at all. My instinct is "no", but I'm open to information.

I am oppossed to both! Adding either or both of these taxes on tap of the fed income tax is a punishing burden to the lower income levels.

As for VAT and foreign goods- posts I linked to for you to see talked of foreign goods going up 15-20% with a VAT.

You are actually already receiving the benifits of one tax reduction (assuming you get a paycheck). Obama Announces Tax Reductions

But it's not very reasonable of you to complaining about tax increases that might happen and compare then to tax reductions that haven't happened yet. I'd like to stick to actual propositions, and we need to put them in the same context (existing vs proposed).

I forgot this sham tax reduction! Yes they are lowering the amount of taxes withheld in your paycheck- but they are not lowering the income tables- so you will get less of a return at the end of the year or if you normally get a negligible return you will end up owing the fed next April. This "tax reduction" is just sleight of hand. Whjeh Bush did it he was roundly criticized by the left, but he also changed the tax tables to make th erebates real tax breaks.

[tlj009]

Unfortunately, you've already brought up the real estimated costs (congress has it at $175 per person per year), and that's not really "skyrocketing".

I am not sure what constitutes "skyrocketing", but $175/year is 10-15% for me. And that is assuming per household and not per person. If it is per person, then we are talking about 50-60%. My monthly electricity bill is only about $100/month. But I am pretty conservative on my usage too.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I am not sure what constitutes "skyrocketing", but $175/year is 10-15% for me. And that is assuming per household and not per person. If it is per person, then we are talking about 50-60%. My monthly electricity bill is only about $100/month. But I am pretty conservative on my usage too.

You'd have to compare your consumption to "average". I'd also be interested to know what percentage you've seen rise in the last 11 years (since the estimate is for 2020)... then realize that assumes that there are no improvements to counter it.

[nolidad]

Unfortunately, you've already brought up the real estimated costs (congress has it at $175 per person per year), and that's not really "skyrocketing".

Unless of course you have a family of five lets say-- thats $875 which is alot of money for the lower and lower middle class.

Nor did Obama say he would not raise any taxes.

but he was adamant in his guarentee that folks making under $259K would see tax reduction-- there are not proposals running around to offset the tax increases on these people yet to follow through on his guarentee.

Nor are you acknowledging the real costs of not capping pollution (if nothing else, there are many health costs).

So lets build nukes- O carbon footprint- massive energy- less disruptive than hydro dams (the fish) and windmills (birds) and produces netr reduction in utility costs.

Nor are you acknowledging that the move away from (for example) dirty coal is necessary sooner or later.

Well we know we have to find alternatives- thats a given, fossil fuels, though we stillhave centuries of proven reserves are still finite. What we need are alternatives that will not bankrupt people with exhorbitant costs. Example: Even with a $5,000 fed rebate to buy a hybrid-- the cost is still around 20K-- not many lower and ,ower middle class folk can buy these.

And repair costrs are more significant, and batteries are hugely expensive and the technology is still young.

When we have proven affordable technology then we can talk about really moving away form fossil fuels. Oh wait-- we could build nukes, hydro dams and windmills if PETA, the Sierra Club and ultra green movements didn't keep filing lawsuits to stop theior contsruction and if the liberals weren't more concerned about their view of Cape Cod over helping the poor get cheaper cleaner energy.

[TahoeJeff]

The have VAT tax here in germany. 19%. Now don't get me wrong, 19% seems kind of excessive to me, but In some ways I like the idea of it. It's nice to know when you buy something for 5 Euro that you don't have to worry about sales tax being added on at the end. The tax is already included in the price. To me, the thing that makes things expensive here is the crappy exchange rate. Other than that, prices seem relatively fair.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by TahoeJeff

The have VAT tax here in germany. 19%. Now don't get me wrong, 19% seems kind of excessive to me, but In some ways I like the idea of it. It's nice to know when you buy something for 5 Euro that you don't have to worry about sales tax being added on at the end. The tax is already included in the price. To me, the thing that makes things expensive here is the crappy exchange rate. Other than that, prices seem relatively fair.

Well if we got rid of the US federal income tax and adopted a 19% VAT OKAY. But to add a 8-15% VAT on top of th eincome tax is just intensely regressive.

There are no sources at all. No proposal has been put down. You are just listening to some people's guesses.

How much would McCain's credit have been? Let's say it was $4,300. What's the difference between taxing it and then crediting it back and not taxing it?

Well once again we are just talking about teh "trial balloons" being floated, by libs and admin people to gauge reactions. I hope you know how those work. Truth is they still have no clue how they are going to pay for their trillion plus nationalization of health care.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well if we got rid of the US federal income tax and adopted a 19% VAT OKAY. But to add a 8-15% VAT on top of th eincome tax is just intensely regressive.

No. It's either always regressive or never regressive. It's not "regressive unless we repeal income tax"

Well once again we are just talking about teh "trial balloons" being floated, by libs and admin people to gauge reactions. I hope you know how those work. Truth is they still have no clue how they are going to pay for their trillion plus nationalization of health care.

AS I understand it, we already have agreements of more than 200-billion in cost savings from hospitals and drug manufacturers, and that's what they have volunteered.

Of course the number itself is *incredibly* misleading and only repeated for effect.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Unless of course you have a family of five lets say-- thats $875 which is alot of money for the lower and lower middle class.

Despite me saying "per person", it's "per household"; and it fails to take into account any savings provided by the same plan.

but he was adamant in his guarentee that folks making under $259K would see tax reduction-- there are not proposals running around to offset the tax increases on these people yet to follow through on his guarentee.

Are you asserting that people making less than $250k are currently paying more tax to the fed than 6 months ago?

It seems to me that you are cherry-picking hypotheticals and then hacking at them.

So lets build nukes- O carbon footprint- massive energy- less disruptive than hydro dams (the fish) and windmills (birds) and produces netr reduction in utility costs.

That would certainly be one way for power companies to drop their carbon emissions. I'm a huge fan of nuclear power.

Well we know we have to find alternatives- thats a given, fossil fuels, though we stillhave centuries of proven reserves are still finite. What we need are alternatives that will not bankrupt people with exhorbitant costs. Example: Even with a $5,000 fed rebate to buy a hybrid-- the cost is still around 20K-- not many lower and ,ower middle class folk can buy these.

I disagree that we have centuries, but otherwise agree with what you've said here.

When we have proven affordable technology then we can talk about really moving away form fossil fuels. Oh wait-- we could build nukes, hydro dams and windmills if PETA, the Sierra Club and ultra green movements didn't keep filing lawsuits to stop theior contsruction and if the liberals weren't more concerned about their view of Cape Cod over helping the poor get cheaper cleaner energy.

Those are generally good ideas, and ones heavily endorsed by the present administration. A frequent refrain has been an improvement of the underlying electrical system to accompanied the differing demands of such power generation systems.

To a good extent, power companies have not wanted them. Coal is cheap. Attaching a cost to pollution (cap-n-trade) and a profit to be made from reducing pollution will likely do a great deal to get us exactly where you describe... and that does nothing in the long run but help us.

[bravesfan007]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

AS I understand it, we already have agreements of more than 200-billion in cost savings from hospitals and drug manufacturers, and that's what they have volunteered.

Call me skeptical, but I can't see an industry giving up that much of its revenue and potential profits just to be nice. Within those agreements there have to be private, underlying arrangements that they receive some benefit.

Also, the agreements that have been made have been between the president and the health care industry, not Congress and the industry. This has no binding hold on us (as far as I know).

[tlj009]

Call me skeptical, but I can't see an industry giving up that much of its revenue and potential profits just to be nice. Within those agreements there have to be private, underlying arrangements that they receive some benefit.

I think that it is more likely that they were threatened or bullied into it. That seems to be how the government works.