I’ve told this to normal liberals that what is driving this is a global shortage of money.
They have run out of sources and the only way out is to invent new taxes.
Global Warming Tax....VAT Tax 2....Rich Guy Tax.
Even the GOP-e wants to secretly go this way.
No it wouldn’t. I would still be buying, but not the way the governments wants me to purchase.... Underground
42% Think of that. Say you spring for that new TV and drop a thousand your you will have to pay an additional $420.00 more in tax. Economy killer.
I just read this article and I don’t think the math is right, with one caveat.
Medicare in 2018 cost $582B, with 44M enrolled. That is over $13k per person. This article says another option is to pay $7500 per person in Medicare taxes. That is far less than 13k
The caveat is that the younger need less medical care. But any “all you can eat” system will have more usage than pay-go.
Will not comply.
I support the FAIR tax which, I think, usually aims at something like a 17% sales tax (not a VAT). Of course, you’d have to get rid of income taxes entirely).
I’m not surprised the Democrats muck up the idea entirely.
When it’s so bad, even leftist Yahoo’s have to call you out on it...
Already shut down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
just create money out of thin air and blame the resulting inflation on evil capitalists
So is it a sales tax, or a VAT? There is a difference.
Other than food, gas, taxes and building materials, I have largely dropped out of the normal economy. I repair appliances rather than buy new. I have several antique cars and a 15 year old Tundra. I will never own another new car. The concept of store bought furniture was never on my play card. I have three pieces that were purchased new thirty years ago. During the Housing Brouhaha I sold my McMansion for more than twice what I had in it. Without a mortgage, I was able, over the years to purchase nine low end homes with acreage, fix and rent them out. I am now independent and retired. (Having a house mortgage on the house you live in seems good until you look at the opportunity costs. It is better to buy a mobile home on good property, pay it off, rent it, and move to another to fix up. Therein lies one of the paths to financial independence.)
They are destroying California and New York and want to start destroying the economy and make all people except them equally poor.
Liberals claim to be the most educated people, yet, they fail basic math and common sense.
A 42% sales tax won’t help save the Big Ag companies whose diabetes-inducing products are causing the massive health care cost spikes. They have to find an Obamacare-like solution - where the big political contributors’ profits are maintained and the Republican-leaning middle class pays for it.
If the Democrats taxed everything 100% there is not enough money in the country to pay for half their schemes. We do not hav a taxing problem, we have a spending problem.
Why not just have the government determine how much money each US resident is allowed to keep for themselves. Not just money but goods and real estate that can be converted to money. Why should a family of 2 need a 3 bedroom house? Why do they need 2 cars? As for investments- the gains from those must be restricted. A true equality means everybody loses.
I am not serious but I bet some of our betters think like this.
"The Democratic plan for a 42% national sales tax"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Whatever Elizabeth Warren learned about the federal government’s powers in law school, it evidently wasn't constitutional limits on those powers as the Founding States had intended for those limits to be understood.
From related threads…
Patriots, beware of the twisted, unconstitutionally wide interpretation of Congress’s limited Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3) by FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring justices in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard). In deciding Wickard, FDR’s puppet justices wrongly ignored that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified limits on Congress's powers, including strict limits on Congress's power to appropriate taxes.
More specifically, 19th century patriot justices had clarified the already clear meaning of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (1.8.3), that the states have never expressly constitutionally given Congress the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; "
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had likewise reflected that the Founding States had left the care of the people to the states, not the federal government.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
Justice Brandeis had put it this way about state powers to serve the people.
"It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose [emphasis added], serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” —Justice Brandeis, Laboratories of democracy.
(Note that constitutional limits on states as “laboratories of democracy,” as Brandeis had put it, is that states cannot establish privileged / protected classes or abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, and must maintain a constitutionally guaranteed republican form of government.)
So it follows that Congress is not allowed to tax in the name of state power issues, the Founding States intending for most "government" domestic policy to be defined and administered by individual states, not the feds.
But who cares what I say about Congress’s limited power to tax? Here’s what the Gibbons justices also said about Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes with respect to the Commerce Clause.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Getting back to the FDR era Supreme Court’s politically motivated decision in Wickard, why is the federal government now dictating domestic policy for things that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to address?
The bottom line is that most federal domestic policy is based on stolen state powers and state revenues imo, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes according to the Gibbons excerpt above.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, patriots can bet that if a given federal domestic spending program is not reasonably related to the US Mail Service (1.8.7) then that program is unconstitutional, and win their bet probably most of the time.
So how did citizens wind up with an unconstitutionally big federal government on their backs?
Regarding unconstitutional federal domestic spending, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” the excerpt below from Wickard shows what was left of the defense of 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty by the last of state sovereignty-respecting majority justices in United States v. Butler, FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices later blatantly ignoring the reasonable Butler interpretation of 10A when they scandalously decided Wickard in Congress’s favor imo.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
The remedy for the unconstitutionally big federal government on our backs…
Patriots must elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to fully support PDJT's vision for MAGA, now KAG, but also consider this.
New patriot lawmakers also need to promise to support PDJT in putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Once unconstitutional taxes are stopped, each state will ultimately find new revenues to establish the kind of social spending programs that the state’s legal majority voting citizens want.
And to make such changes permanent, patriots need to further support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Make America Great!)
"The “Holy Grail” of organized crime is to control government power to tax." —me
"The 16th Amendment effectively repealed the involuntary servitude aspect of the 13th Amendment imo, evidenced by unconstitutional federal taxes." —me
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"13th Amendment, Section 1:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added], except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
"16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
"The constitutionally undefined political parties are basically rival, corrupt voter unions, “union dues” paid by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.” —me
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
This needs to be publicized strongly, let people think about it before the election.