In response to:

Higher Taxes on the Rich Mean Higher Taxes on the Rest of Us

Scott853 Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 2:10 PM
Personally I'd be in favor ofa VAT consumption tax if it means the drug dealers, who pay no income tax, would be taxed now when they buy their bling, and my neighbor the contractor, who starts every job with, 'if you pay cash, I'll knock off something from the bill' would have to pay tax when he buys stuff with that massive amount of unreported income he makes. This is MY definition of a fair tax--when my neighbor who makes as much as me but pays almost nothing in income tax because so much of his income is (illegally) unreported now has to pay his FAIR share for society's benefits. Mr. Mitchell, if you have a better idea for getting all that unreported income to be taxed than a VAT, I am all ears.
Jeff_Georgia Wrote: Oct 30, 2012 3:45 PM
Scott8: you really need to do some reading. A VAT and a consumption tax are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things. I think, from the rest of your post, that it is a consumption tax that you want.

A VAT tax is evil. Pure and simple.

President Obama repeatedly assures us that he only wants higher taxes on the rich as part of his class-warfare agenda.

But I don’t trust him. In part because he’s a politician, but also because there aren’t enough rich people to finance big government (not to mention that the rich easily can alter their financial affairs to avoid higher tax rates).

Honest leftists are beginning to admit that their real target is the middle class. Here are a few examples.

  • The New York Times 
Related Tags: Taxes rich