AAAAAHHHHHHH!! IOUSA is a Setup for a National Sales Tax !!

[raystone]

It all makes sense now...

From the IOUSA movie guide on p 22 under Moving Forward...

"Reforming our tax system, making it simpler and fairer while generating additional revenues"

-------------------------

:eek: Peterson and Walker are deficit hawk socialists. :eek:

"From 1977 to 1980, however, he (Pete Peterson) served as one of two U.S. members (out of a total of 18) of the Brandt Commission, a project of the Socialist International (SI).

"Mr. Walker was appointed by President Bill Clinton..." We've commended David Walker for for always carrying a copy of the constitution, calling the War on Terror unconstutional. However, looking back on it, he's never said we shouldn't raise taxes.

Peterson and Walker didn't have input into the movie, but the movie will be extremely helpful in making American citizens more pliable and amienable to the idea of higher taxes.

The...Let's all pay our fair share to save our kids' futures" angle

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

It all makes sense now...

From the IOUSA movie guide on p 22 under Moving Forward...

"Reforming our tax system, making it simpler and fairer while generating additional revenues"

-------------------------

:eek: Peterson and Walker are deficit hawk socialists. :eek:

"From 1977 to 1980, however, he (Pete Peterson) served as one of two U.S. members (out of a total of 18) of the Brandt Commission, a project of the Socialist International (SI).

"Mr. Walker was appointed by President Bill Clinton..." We've commended David Walker for for always carrying a copy of the constitution, calling the War on Terror unconstutional. However, looking back on it, he's never said we shouldn't raise taxes.

Peterson and Walker didn't have input into the movie, but the movie will be extremely helpful in making American citizens more pliable and amienable to the idea of higher taxes.

The...Let's all pay our fair share to save our kids' futures" angle

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!

Yeah, what'd you expect?

At least they're advocating the end of deficit financing, which is step #1. They lose all our support once they try to go to step #2 (increasing spending w/ outright higher taxes instead of deficits).

[votefreedomfirst]

I suspect they will first institute a national sales tax VIA the internet, which is the reason for this legislation:

Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government (http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/press_template.php?press_id=2571)

Once they have the infrastructure in place it's only a matter of time.

[yoshimaroka]

From 1977 to 1980, however, he (Pete Peterson) served as one of two U.S. members (out of a total of 18) of the Brandt Commission, a project of the Socialist International (SI).

What source is that from?

[raystone]

What source is that from?

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/2032-establishment-leader-says-hell-combat-debt-problem-

[ItsTime]

they just want everything dont they?

[KenInMontiMN]

Can you link that movie guide?

[TastyWheat]

I'd take a national sales tax over all the ones we have now. Flat, fair, and technically voluntary.

[yongrel]

Beats the alternative.

[bucfish]

A national sales tax would be better than cause bartering and cash sales would give us Power!

[votefreedomfirst]

I don't understand why anyone - RP supporters especially - would assume a national sales tax would mean repeal of the income tax. It'd most likely mean we'd end up with both.

[KenInMontiMN]

Before we move on to inventing new taxes, we'd be very wise to explore returning to those already constitutionally provided for as Dr. Paul suggests (import tariffs). I'd tend to agree that prudence & responsibility requires paying the bills and buying down the debt, I'd want to see most of that movement occur through massive spending cuts, but grudgingly concede the possibility that we're too far over the edge to accomplish that with spending cuts alone and may need to encourage revenue increase one way or another. For me, before we talk about anything new in the way of taxes, tariffs aimed in particular at nations well out of any semblance of trade balance with us is the clear step one. Putting a nat'l sales tax in place as a first step would be as huge a mistake and disaster as the sixteenth amendment was, possibly moreso, since the 16th amendment has never been used to attempt to extract tax from those with virtually nothing. Also any tax that actually encourages refraining from business transactions as a hefty sales tax would doesn't bode well for economic growth, at least above the table.

[raystone]

Can you link that movie guide?


http://www.iousathemovie.com/download/

[fr33domfightr]

Warren Buffet is in this movie as well. I've heard him mention previously that he thought HIS taxes were too low. I believe that's the comment that promtped Bush to mention during the State Of The Union address, that people can pay more to the IRS if they feel they're paying too little. So far, I haven't heard of Buffet offering to pay more in taxes.

Looking at paying taxes, it wouldn't make sense to raise people's taxes and turn around and give them tax rebates. If you look where the recent rebates went (singles earning up to 75K, couples to 150K), it wouldn't make sense to raise the taxes on these people, since these were the ones helping the economy the most.

If it's true that the idea is to raise more taxes AND simplify the tax code, I'd say you'd be looking at a VAT tax (Fair Tax) or Flat (Income) Tax. By having a Flat tax or VAT tax you could extract more money from those either earning more money, or spending more money, as long as the tax deductions are eliminated.

Wealthier people may not like to pay more in taxes, but AS A PERCENTAGE of their income, they may pay a low percentage (with their deductions). Forget the dollar amount argument. Percentages in tax is what we should focus on. Watch how Republicans typically use the dollars and not percentages. When you focus on percentages, that's how you find out the pain someone is feeling from paying, not in dollars.


FF

[Rhys]

http://www.cfr.org/bios/257/peter_g_peterson.html





Peter G. Peterson, Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; Senior Chairman and Co-Founder, the Blackstone Group

Peter G. Peterson

Senior Chairman and Co-Founder, The Blackstone Group




Mr. Peterson is senior chairman and co-founder of The Blackstone Group, a private investment banking firm. He is founding president of The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan citizens group dedicated to fiscal responsibility, chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In government, he served as Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs, Secretary of Commerce, and headed several commissions concerned with U.S. productivity and U.S.-Soviet economic relations. He has had extensive experience in the private sector, including as chairman and chief executive officer of Lehman Brothers and its successor company from 1973 to 1984, and chief executive officer of Bell and Howell from 1963 to 1971. He is the author of several books, including Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It and Gray Dawn: How the Coming Age Wave Will Transform America – and the World. He is based in New York, NY.

[Leroy_Jenkems]

I'd take a national sales tax over all the ones we have now. Flat, fair, and technically voluntary.

Define "fair." And what makes you think they'll be substituting this tax for some of the less fair ones?


To paraphrase what votefreedomfirst stated, don't assume that they'll repeal the federal income tax, or other taxes and replace with this one. From what I gather, the bureaucrats are looking to increase revenues - in layman terms, MORE taxes on the heap, NOT a swap of any sorts.

[sickmint79]

peterson had zero to do with what went into this movie.

[rancher89]

before we move on to inventing new taxes, we'd be very wise to explore returning to those already constitutionally provided for as dr. Paul suggests (import tariffs). I'd tend to agree that prudence & responsibility requires paying the bills and buying down the debt, i'd want to see most of that movement occur through massive spending cuts, but grudgingly concede the possibility that we're too far over the edge to accomplish that with spending cuts alone and may need to encourage revenue increase one way or another. For me, before we talk about anything new in the way of taxes, tariffs aimed in particular at nations well out of any semblance of trade balance with us is the clear step one. Putting a nat'l sales tax in place as a first step would be as huge a mistake and disaster as the sixteenth amendment was, possibly moreso, since the 16th amendment has never been used to attempt to extract tax from those with virtually nothing. Also any tax that actually encourages refraining from business transactions as a hefty sales tax would doesn't bode well for economic growth, at least above the table.

+1776

[rancher89]

Warren Buffet is in this movie as well. I've heard him mention previously that he thought HIS taxes were too low. I believe that's the comment that promtped Bush to mention during the State Of The Union address, that people can pay more to the IRS if they feel they're paying too little. So far, I haven't heard of Buffet offering to pay more in taxes.

Looking at paying taxes, it wouldn't make sense to raise people's taxes and turn around and give them tax rebates. If you look where the recent rebates went (singles earning up to 75K, couples to 150K), it wouldn't make sense to raise the taxes on these people, since these were the ones helping the economy the most.

If it's true that the idea is to raise more taxes AND simplify the tax code, I'd say you'd be looking at a VAT tax (Fair Tax) or Flat (Income) Tax. By having a Flat tax or VAT tax you could extract more money from those either earning more money, or spending more money, as long as the tax deductions are eliminated.

Wealthier people may not like to pay more in taxes, but AS A PERCENTAGE of their income, they may pay a low percentage (with their deductions). Forget the dollar amount argument. Percentages in tax is what we should focus on. Watch how Republicans typically use the dollars and not percentages. When you focus on percentages, that's how you find out the pain someone is feeling from paying, not in dollars.


FF

Exactly, it's in the percentages! The rich used to pay close to 90% in taxes, but there were incentives to reduce that, investment in infrastructure, business creation etc LOWERED the percentage they had to pay. Imagine that, cutting your taxes by investing in your country-----I like it.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

they just want everything dont they?

And they won't stop until they have it.

[LibertyCola]

A national sales tax would be better than cause bartering and cash sales would give us Power!

Now we get an income tax AND a sales tax. GREAT!

[Antonius Stone]

I would not support a national sales tax unless the bill also included a provision for repealing the current income tax.

that said, I think a national sales tax would be far better for the economy than a national income tax. It would encourage savings.

[sickmint79]

It all makes sense now...

From the IOUSA movie guide on p 22 under Moving Forward...

"Reforming our tax system, making it simpler and fairer while generating additional revenues"

-------------------------

:eek: Peterson and Walker are deficit hawk socialists. :eek:

"From 1977 to 1980, however, he (Pete Peterson) served as one of two U.S. members (out of a total of 18) of the Brandt Commission, a project of the Socialist International (SI).

"Mr. Walker was appointed by President Bill Clinton..." We've commended David Walker for for always carrying a copy of the constitution, calling the War on Terror unconstutional. However, looking back on it, he's never said we shouldn't raise taxes.

Peterson and Walker didn't have input into the movie, but the movie will be extremely helpful in making American citizens more pliable and amienable to the idea of higher taxes.

The...Let's all pay our fair share to save our kids' futures" angle

AAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!

i didn't see anything about a national sales tax on this page

[TastyWheat]

Define "fair." And what makes you think they'll be substituting this tax for some of the less fair ones?


To paraphrase what votefreedomfirst stated, don't assume that they'll repeal the federal income tax, or other taxes and replace with this one. From what I gather, the bureaucrats are looking to increase revenues - in layman terms, MORE taxes on the heap, NOT a swap of any sorts.
It's flat for one, and flat is pretty fair. Also, since wealthy Americans spend more money they would pay more in taxes. Furthermore, visitors and illegals couldn't avoid paying taxes.

I understand the skepticism though. A national sales tax should be a replacement and not a supplement.

[Maximus]

I'll take a sales tax over this any day

And it seems like it would be easier to chip away at the tax, no Govt official would seriously advocate raising it, imagine the uproar "but this will hurt the poor and elderly, blah blah blah"

[Jordan]

WHOA WHOA WHOA

The people in support of a National Sales tax are missing one major link in the equation, whats going to happen with all of your post tax savings? You're going to pay taxes on money that you've already paid taxes on!

For example, lets say you made $75000 in the 28% bracket and saved every post tax penny you earned. You'd be left with $54,000 in your pocket, now a national sales tax comes around at 22% and you're left with $42100 in true spending power with another $12k going to the Federal Government. Your total tax bill would work out to $33,000 in taxes on $75000 in income.

Better yet, what about people with a Roth IRA who have been saving post tax income for retirement, you're going to tax this RETIREMENT savings again? People who use these programs paid the tax so they wouldnt have to when they retired.

And how about those people on fixed income, or seniors with millions in fixed income investments. Should your grandpa be taxed yet again for what he has saved over the years?

Please, a national sales tax is just about as bad as the death tax.

[texasbelle]

I don't understand why anyone - RP supporters especially - would assume a national sales tax would mean repeal of the income tax. It'd most likely mean we'd end up with both.

My thoughts exactly!

[Leroy_Jenkems]

It's flat for one, and flat is pretty fair.

You're truly naive if you actually believe that a "flat" national sales tax will quench the bureaucrats' thirst for our money, whether substituted for another or not. Give the devil (err, I mean the goverment) an inch, it'll take a mile.


Also, since wealthy Americans spend more money they would pay more in taxes.

The rich got to where they are by NOT spending their money, or spending it on items that have a return on investment. As a fella I know who hoardes gold in his basement says, "Once you spend money, you ain't got it no more."


Furthermore, visitors and illegals couldn't avoid paying taxes.
Really? Name one item that they can purchase now without paying taxes which they could purchase with a national sales tax in place and not avoid paying taxes. Perhaps you've never heard of "horse trading" - people who want to get around taxes can do so if the motivation is strong enough.


I understand the skepticism though. A national sales tax should be a replacement and not a supplement.
Keyword there is "should" - good luck with that.

[Conza88]

i didn't see anything about a national sales tax on this page


http://media.damnfunnypictures.com/dfp/EpicFailRoundup002.jpg

Why is it that you want to believe this propagandamentry is sooooo good, to the point where reality doesn't phase you?:confused:

[Joseph Hart]

Theres going to be a LIVE interview at the end, broadcast to all the theaters.

[sickmint79]

Why is it that you want to believe this propagandamentry is sooooo good, to the point where reality doesn't phase you?:confused:


excuse me? reality doesn't faze me? i'm tired of watching people bitch about what is in the movie or that peterson supports if when they've never seen the movie and peterson had nothing to do with it. i'm not that one having a problem with reality. it's people on this board that see the boogey man everywhere that they turn. i just read p. 22 and it doesn't say "national sales tax" - it says tax reform. which the system could definitely use. what kind? well i guess that is up for discussion.

[Conza88]

excuse me? reality doesn't faze me? i'm tired of watching people bitch about what is in the movie or that peterson supports if when they've never seen the movie and peterson had nothing to do with it.

I iz not bitchin', I did not explicably state that Peterson personally had something to do with it; his FOUNDATION did though ;)

i just read p. 22 and it doesn't say "national sales tax" - it says tax reform. which the system could definitely use. what kind? well i guess that is up for discussion.
Not really... in the sense, they'll be telling us - what reform they will be doing. ;)

The people have no say. And, this is what I've been concluding with in my last several posts... we'll see how it all goes down. Fancy a bet? :D

:cool:

[sickmint79]

I iz not bitchin', I did not explicably state that Peterson personally had something to do with it; his FOUNDATION did though ;)

Not really... in the sense, they'll be telling us - what reform they will be doing. ;)

The people have no say. And, this is what I've been concluding with in my last several posts... we'll see how it all goes down. Fancy a bet? :D

:cool:

i'd bet you if i thought you'd honor it. i have been following this movie for months and you are basing your views off of 1 week paranoid conspiracy speculation. pete peterson's foundation had nothing to do with the movie.

the movie showed in jan at sundance.
some scenes were re-shot and added over the next several months because credit crisis stuff and things already falling apart.
peterson's foundation didn't start until feb or so.
peterson's foundation didn't buy movie until after it was done shooting and shown at agora's vancouver symposium; i think some time in july.

peterson himself, nor his foundation, had input to the movie, aside from your delusions. my understanding is they tried to make the movie free of blame and suggestion for directions in reform or politics so it is premature for you to be whining about proposed solutions when you have seen NONE.