25% national sales tax would pay for universal health care, balance the budget and exempt most Americans from the income tax

[rebeccajo 14]

How could a VAT be implemented as long as there are other taxes we deal with - ie local income taxes; state sales taxes; state income taxes, etc?

Europeans and others can somewhat 'afford' a VAT because they aren't paying taxes to local entities.

I do think that taxes should have at least some proportionality to one's income.

I think taxes should be proportional to the value you add to society. Those who add more value should pay less. You can contribute to society in one of two ways, by adding value through work and enterprise, or by paying taxes. It can be either/or or a combination.

Well, gee, let's just be subjective...........

[Peikko 1,575]

How could a VAT be implemented as long as there are other taxes we deal with - ie local income taxes; state sales taxes; state income taxes, etc?

Europeans and others can somewhat 'afford' a VAT because they aren't paying taxes to local entities.

I do think that taxes should have at least some proportionality to one's income.

I think taxes should be proportional to the value you add to society. Those who add more value should pay less. You can contribute to society in one of two ways, by adding value through work and enterprise, or by paying taxes. It can be either/or or a combination.

Well, gee, let's just be subjective...........

There are local taxes in the UK.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, gee, let's just be subjective...........

Value add can be easily quantified. You work for a company that made billions in profit? Well, divide the profit by number of employees and apportion that amount to your value add.

Work for Lehman brothers when it went down? The rest of your life will now be spent in tax servitude to the state. Report to the nearest labor camp immediately.

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course, not on sales. The local taxes are normally paid on the basis of a council tax.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How could a VAT be implemented as long as there are other taxes we deal with - ie local income taxes; state sales taxes; state income taxes, etc?

Europeans and others can somewhat 'afford' a VAT because they aren't paying taxes to local entities.

I do think that taxes should have at least some proportionality to one's income.

I think taxes should be proportional to the value you add to society. Those who add more value should pay less. You can contribute to society in one of two ways, by adding value through work and enterprise, or by paying taxes. It can be either/or or a combination.

Well, gee, let's just be subjective...........

There are local taxes in the UK.

You guys are slaves to the state but you seem to enjoy the chains.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, gee, let's just be subjective...........

Value add can be easily quantified. You work for a company that made billions in profit? Well, divide the profit by number of employees and apportion that amount to your value add.

Work for Lehman brothers when it went down? The rest of your life will now be spent in tax servitude to the state. Report to the nearest labor camp immediately.

I can see the incentive in such a system.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I can see the incentive in such a system.

Make money, or else.

[rebeccajo 14]

How could a VAT be implemented as long as there are other taxes we deal with - ie local income taxes; state sales taxes; state income taxes, etc?

Europeans and others can somewhat 'afford' a VAT because they aren't paying taxes to local entities.

I do think that taxes should have at least some proportionality to one's income.

I think taxes should be proportional to the value you add to society. Those who add more value should pay less. You can contribute to society in one of two ways, by adding value through work and enterprise, or by paying taxes. It can be either/or or a combination.

Well, gee, let's just be subjective...........

There are local taxes in the UK.

Rates?

Not the same.....

[Peikko 1,575]

I can see the incentive in such a system.

Make money, or else.

Beautiful in it's simplicity and totally dedicated to the Capitalist line of thinking. It's winner!

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

I am not sure the American public would want to have their tax burden increased and have nothing to show for it.

Oh, you would be suprised at the number of people who would not blink an eye if the right ( left) politician proposed it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am not sure the American public would want to have their tax burden increased and have nothing to show for it.

Oh, you would be suprised at the number of people who would not blink an eye if the right ( left) politician proposed it.

as long as it's for the chil'run.

[Peikko 1,575]

Which, of course, it would be

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The fact remains, at least in our area, the average two income family earns an average of $50,000. The average hovel here sells for $250,000, or 5 times that amount. Solid home loans are typically based on the purchaser buying a home worth twice the annual earned income. THUS homes are not 'affordable' per my original statement.

Add 25% to the $250k home price, and affordability drops even lower...

Here's where you're going wrong. Who care what the average family makes? What matters is what the average family that can afford the downpayment and has good enough credit makes. Many families will never own a home. They are simply not eligible. Including them in the statistical pool just muddies the data.

You did not used to need to be fabulously wealthy to afford the 'luxury' of your own home. If the job market is heading towards steadier lower pay, while the housing market features rising 'values' then you don't have affordability.

The ability for most people to earn a modest income and also afford the dream of owning a modest house is the American dream.

You miss a point if fewer and fewer two income families can afford even modest starter homes. What Bill Gates can call 'affordable' is not what defines affordability.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If the job market is heading towards steadier lower pay, while the housing market features rising 'values' then you don't have affordability.

The job market is a theoretical construct, of no meaning.

In reality, there are many job markets, each for people with different skill sets.

You have to be part of the right job markets to even be able to buy a home. It is how it should be.

In professions that can yield an income that can allow one to responsibly buy a home, incomes aren't decreasing. Far from it.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

If the job market is heading towards steadier lower pay, while the housing market features rising 'values' then you don't have affordability.

The job market is a theoretical construct, of no meaning.

In reality, there are many job markets, each for people with different skill sets.

You have to be part of the right job markets to even be able to buy a home. It is how it should be.

In professions that can yield an income that can allow one to responsibly buy a home, incomes aren't decreasing. Far from it.

"In reality, there are many job markets, each for people with different skill sets."

In reality, there are a great many who earn legitimately high pay. However, there are many who earn high pay illegitimately, such as CEO's of major financial institutions, and others high up in their structure who earn breathtaking incomes yet not only do not contribute constructively to society, their work has cost society dearly.

"You have to be part of the right job markets to even be able to buy a home. It is how it should be."

As my original statement indicated, the average family where I am earns 50 K per year. Obviously some earn less, others more, thus the term average in my sentence.

The average family has to live somewhere. That is how it should be...

If the average 'starter' home costs 250 K, then the average family can't afford it. Not only can't they afford to buy it, they can't afford to rent it either. That is not how it should be.

Image source: http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housing...s_1890-2008.png

Look at around 1995 on this graph. This is the time frame where the average working American family began to be either priced out of buying a home, or more aptly for my original point, the price of homes grew out of all reasonable proportion the their true 'value.'

People still bought homes, they just couldn't really afford them, bought with money that does not truly exist via the banking/financial shell game we think of as the free market.

125 K adjusted for inflation is the sweet spot for 'affordability' by my definition. 1995 through the present crisis is where average home 'values' double.

This is not how it should be.

"In professions that can yield an income that can allow one to responsibly buy a home, incomes aren't decreasing. Far from it."

Certainly your last argument illustrates another point to my comment, working for Lehman Brothers, or Washington Mutual, or any of the many failed or failing industries during our current crisis made plenty of 'money.'

They did not, however, contribute to the problem of housing affordability. Incomes for some are increasing at the very top, for fewer in the middle, and in terms of buying power shrinking from the upper middle down to the bottom

The creation of a serf society living amongst the fewer and fewer haves is not how it should be.