Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care

[Heracles 417]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. The corporations and jobs will come back when we are the cheapest place to do business. We will have more money for real wages, more money in our pockets and a nuetral net revenue stream for the government. There will be no more "tax the rich" schemes as we will be taxed on what we spend, not what we earn. Any tax increase would affect everyone, though not equally since rich people spend more and would be taxed more UNLESS they save the money in which case it will be available for investment. No more 1040s to fill out. No more tax compliance costs, no more tax consrns when making business decisions. No more tax lobbyists. Billions held in offshore tax shelters will come home for spending and investment.

I have heard a few people talk about this tax but its just not realistic. What happens when people stop spending? Who pays the bills? The government could effectively be bankrupted.

It also assumes that the country's issues are due to tax. That is dead wrong. Countries with a high standard of living actually have high tax rates, particularly for the well off.

The government is bankrupt, more or less.

It will be totally bankrupt under a consumption tax system. Consumption taxes work great during boom times but are a disaster during a crisis or recession.

If anyone wants to recommend a legitimate tax improvement, it would be to implement a federal GST that is the same rate across the country. Eliminating all loopholes, as it does in Canada and (do I mention) Aus.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Booyah!

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. The corporations and jobs will come back when we are the cheapest place to do business. We will have more money for real wages, more money in our pockets and a nuetral net revenue stream for the government. There will be no more "tax the rich" schemes as we will be taxed on what we spend, not what we earn. Any tax increase would affect everyone, though not equally since rich people spend more and would be taxed more UNLESS they save the money in which case it will be available for investment. No more 1040s to fill out. No more tax compliance costs, no more tax consrns when making business decisions. No more tax lobbyists. Billions held in offshore tax shelters will come home for spending and investment.

I have heard a few people talk about this tax but its just not realistic. What happens when people stop spending? Who pays the bills? The government could effectively be bankrupted. it could never happen right? wrong! What happens during a recession? Buying groceries is not going to pay for the military's $750 billion dollar budget.

It also assumes that the country's issues are due to tax. That is dead wrong. Countries with a high standard of living actually have high tax rates, particularly for the well off.

Fundamentally changing the tax code will avoid a lot of recessions. When people stop spending? What happens when people stop earning? Same thing. The government tightens its belt with the rest of us.

Some of the countries issues ARE tax driven, nor does this reduce the amount of tax, it changes the way it is collected, it is a revenue nuetral option. It makes it more attractive to provide jobs HERE not somewhere else.

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax. The corporations and jobs will come back when we are the cheapest place to do business. We will have more money for real wages, more money in our pockets and a nuetral net revenue stream for the government. There will be no more "tax the rich" schemes as we will be taxed on what we spend, not what we earn. Any tax increase would affect everyone, though not equally since rich people spend more and would be taxed more UNLESS they save the money in which case it will be available for investment. No more 1040s to fill out. No more tax compliance costs, no more tax consrns when making business decisions. No more tax lobbyists. Billions held in offshore tax shelters will come home for spending and investment.

I have heard a few people talk about this tax but its just not realistic. What happens when people stop spending? Who pays the bills? The government could effectively be bankrupted.

It also assumes that the country's issues are due to tax. That is dead wrong. Countries with a high standard of living actually have high tax rates, particularly for the well off.

The government is bankrupt, more or less.

It will be totally bankrupt under a consumption tax system. Consumption taxes work great during boom times but are a disaster during a crisis or recession.

If anyone wants to recommend a legitimate tax improvement, it would be to implement a federal GST that is the same rate across the country. Eliminating all loopholes, as it does in Canada and (do I mention) Aus.

That is exactly what a consumption tax is. A sales tax, standard throughout the country on all goods and services to replace the income tax.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax introduce a flat rate income tax on each and every dollar earned - actively or passively.

Now I'm on board.

A flat tax is a weak sister substitute. The problem is none of the "flat taxes" proposed are truly a flat tax. The end up being a temporary simplification of the mess we have now. Also none of them relieve the tax burden on business. You cannot tax business or corproations, it is not possible. Businesses and corporations merely collect tax and pass it on to consumers, stockholders and/or employees. ONLY individuals can pay tax. anything else is simply smoke and mirrors. Corporate tax is simply money which SHOULD have gone to investors, employees or consumers. Get it OUT! Pay us our money, ALL of our money and see what happens. the idea that giving my family an extra $400 per week would be a disaster for the country is preposterous! My wife will stimulate the HELL out of the economy with it. And even if she is a miser and saves it, the bank will have money to loan to someone else to invest or build a house or a business.

I could more support a flat tax IF there were any flat tax proposals that said "OK, whatever you make, you pay XX%" Period. The tax return would be a postcard. How much did you make? Multiply by XX%. send it in. OK, I agree. The idea that governemnt can better decide how to spend OUR money is profane.

The government opposes a consumption tax (GST) because it cannot control the population with it, for the same reason they keep an underclass and will do nothing about it. They want control of people, either by the people being dependent or by the people being manipulated by the tax code (buy a car company, implement a credit to stimulate car buying, impose tarrifs on foreign tires) It is all about control, manipulation and coersion. Get it OUT. Collect the money fair and square from everyone who SPENDS money and that is it. I adre say their would be so many jobs created we would forget all about illegal aliens. And other high standard countries will follow suit when they have to compete with us again for a change.

But you needn't worry, it iwll not happen. The people that are the ones that can implement it are the same ones that benefit from the current mess. They will not stop their own gravy train in lobbyist donations and control

[Heracles 417]

What about those who don't spend are are basically tight azzes? Effectively they would pay almost no tax. What happens during period of downturn?

Income tax ensures that everyone pays their fair share. I have no issue with it at all. If anything I think the top end does not pay their fair share in the US, considering what they are earning. You would be very hard pressed to find any developed country that does not have an income tax.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Booyah!

[HYENA 4]

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'

Republicans see death panels, too.

I said it before, but since I think it applies here, too, I'll say it again. Why do people think there is a problem with illegals getting health coverage but don't have a problem with covering welfare recipients who have never payed a dime in taxes beyond sales tax? They are both mooching.

I can understand the economic differentiation, but ethically, there is not a leg to stand on if you claim that illegals shouldn't get coverage and citizens who don't pay income tax should. In order for this to make ethical sense, you have to argue that some people are better or more deserving than others simply because of their birth country. That claim, in my opinion, is inherently unethical in itself.

Anyone with Caucasoid background is illegal (where's everyone's brains?)! No one here speaks the native tongue yet somehow Europeans move into a country, refuse to speak the native language, throw the inhabitants into parcels of the worst land and we're worried about illegal immigrants? We're the illegal immigrants! European peoples took land, lied to the inhabitants, did not honor contracts, slaughtered the owners and starved them out.... and now somehow this holier than thou attitude erupts only a couple hundred years later; a flash in history....

I think Mexicans have more Native American blood than Caucasoid peoples! (just being devils advocate here)!

I'm definitely an illegal immigrant!

Interesting when one studies anthropology and sees that the MIGRATION of humans to the American continents began just 12,000 years ago. That means the "native Americans" are NOT native Americans but Asians that migrated here earlier than the Europeans by land routes. The course of mankind's migration tracing back to the middle east and NE Africa. By this model, we should turn over the USA to Somalia aznd give it back to the rightful owners??? Maybe we shouldn't have dinged those Somali pirates with head shots!

I was born here, I am not an immigrant, nor am I illegal and have no shame for what other people did before me without my consent. I do not apologize for it, it is not mine to do so. The history of the world is such as it is. I cannot change it, nor ignore it. Various peoples have arrived and dominated the landscapes of continents and still do. The current situation is just that. No more permanent or static that the one which existed 10,000 years ago, or 500 years ago. Except that given modern transport methods we can expect to see change faster. Given the current birth rates we can expect to see the American continents once again dominated by Hispanics in 50 years or so, ending the "reign of the Europeans" in record time. Then you will be happy. Good times are comin', no need to be sad every day.

Hispanics are hotter anyway

My favorite color is....SILVER!

Seriously, just being devil's advocate. I don't know the answer for the illegal immigrant thing. It's only by luck I was born here. Everyone does not have the chances we do and it's typically related to skin color the world over. I realized this going through Asia where the skin color thing is awful!

I agree the 500k find would fix it all but we're busy being a corprorocracy sending jobs overseas, making banks richer and addicting Americans to credit so they can control us.

If anyone knows one of these women in that video...see if they can bring some reason to our politicians (I'd certainly listen)!

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

What about those who don't spend are are basically tight azzes? Effectively they would pay almost no tax. What happens during period of downturn?

Income tax ensures that everyone pays their fair share. I have no issue with it at all. If anything I think the top end does not pay their fair share in the US, considering what they are earning. You would be very hard pressed to find any developed country that does not have an income tax.

Right now, 40% of Americans pay no income tax. That would no longer be the case. Under-reported income would no longer be an issue. Another 40% according to IRS estimates. Not to mention billions in cash income never claimed by anyone from a waitress to a prostitute to a drug dealer to an exotic dancer...all would be suject to tax when the money was spent.

You are consistently ignoring the fact that the proposed consumption tax would be revenue nuetral, that means the revenue generated would equal what is taken in now. Could it drop, or increase. YES Can it drop or increase now? YES Basing a tax on earnings during a recession is just as subject to losses as basing it on spending. Basing it on spending and creating a better business atmosphere, an atmosphere in which businesses WANT to make jobs, reduces the likelihood of recession. Many of our states operate quite nicely without income tax, many of them would make a fair sized developed country in themselves, why couldn't the federal government? In fact we DID operate without an income tax for more than 100 years through some of our most prosperous and progressive times.

I have no intention of following along because everyone else does it. This is the USA, we do not do things like everyone else, we look for a better way...or at least we DID. I do not need to wait for some other country to show US the way, we need to show THEM and scoop up on tons of business before THEY do. Let THEM follow us. Let THEM try to get their businesses back.

[HYENA 4]

What about those who don't spend are are basically tight azzes? Effectively they would pay almost no tax. What happens during period of downturn?

Income tax ensures that everyone pays their fair share. I have no issue with it at all. If anything I think the top end does not pay their fair share in the US, considering what they are earning. You would be very hard pressed to find any developed country that does not have an income tax.

Right now, 40% of Americans pay no income tax. That would no longer be the case. Under-reported income would no longer be an issue. Another 40% according to IRS estimates. Not to mention billions in cash income never claimed by anyone from a waitress to a prostitute to a drug dealer to an exotic dancer...all would be suject to tax when the money was spent.

You are consistently ignoring the fact that the proposed consumption tax would be revenue nuetral, that means the revenue generated would equal what is taken in now. Could it drop, or increase. YES Can it drop or increase now? YES Basing a tax on earnings during a recession is just as subject to losses as basing it on spending. Basing it on spending and creating a better business atmosphere, an atmosphere in which businesses WANT to make jobs, reduces the likelihood of recession. Many of our states operate quite nicely without income tax, many of them would make a fair sized developed country in themselves, why couldn't the federal government? In fact we DID operate without an income tax for more than 100 years through some of our most prosperous and progressive times.

I have no intention of following along because everyone else does it. This is the USA, we do not do things like everyone else, we look for a better way...or at least we DID. I do not need to wait for some other country to show US the way, we need to show THEM and scoop up on tons of business before THEY do. Let THEM follow us. Let THEM try to get their businesses back.

I agree; spending tax!

I'd certainly start smuggling more than I have!

The US is screwed and has been since we left the gold standard...since the Federal Reserve bank was Privatized and our preisdents have been puppets for them. Ever wonder why political promises are always broken? What happened to the "stolen" 5 billion unaccounted for during the last stim pkg? Both parties basically said "we're not telling you".

Who cares about a few illegals? Their kids will be legal and fit right in, end of story. Our country is a melting pot anyway with millions of immigrants legally a year, who cares about the minority slipping in? I don't see any REAL answers or REAL solutions so in reality...it will all end up as a discussion right here and nothing meaningful will be done UNLESS someone can make money deporting or legitimizing and creating a lobbyist to bribe officials, this problem will never ever go away!

We've got bigger messes like corruption.

I'd rather move to Australia had I the means to do so (except I hate monarchies...they collect VAT tax just for the hell of it)

Edited September 21, 2009 by HYENA

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why not eliminate income tax and sales tax and go back to tarriffs? Thats how the gov. was funded to begin with.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax introduce a flat rate income tax on each and every dollar earned - actively or passively.

Now I'm on board.

A flat tax is a weak sister substitute.

I don't think so. Flat tax is fair as everyone pays the same tax rate. A consumption tax, on the other hand, is inherently regressive on income.

But you're right. Moot points since it ain't going to happen. Those that purchased the tax legislation we currently have like the loopholes and all that. Makes them pay less than their fair share and they won't have it any other way.

[SMR 368]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax introduce a flat rate income tax on each and every dollar earned - actively or passively.

Now I'm on board.

A flat tax is a weak sister substitute.

I don't think so. Flat tax is fair as everyone pays the same tax rate. A consumption tax, on the other hand, is inherently regressive on income.

But you're right. Moot points since it ain't going to happen. Those that purchased the tax legislation we currently have like the loopholes and all that. Makes them pay less than their fair share and they won't have it any other way.

Why is a consumption tax regressive on income? It's only regressive on income if you assume that poor people spend as much as rich people. If that's true, the rich person is only rich on paper, because he receives the same goods and services as the poor person. Otherwise, the rich person pays more taxes because he buys nicer clothes, cars, food, vacations, houses, electronics, furniture, etc. So he pays more taxes.

And if he puts some money in the bank, then either he's saving for a bigger purchase or saving for a rainy day. Either way, he'll pay taxes in the end when he spends the money. Additionally, if he invests the money, even in a CD, then someone else is meanwhile spending the money.

Moreover, a consumption tax is better than a flat income tax, because you are charging people for using stuff, not for creating stuff. An income tax is inherently a penalty for putting in a hard days work and doing something useful. A consumption tax is a penalty for buying and using things. Whom do we want to penalize, producers or consumers?

Edited September 21, 2009 by SMR

[Dan J 277]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax introduce a flat rate income tax on each and every dollar earned - actively or passively.

Now I'm on board.

A flat tax is a weak sister substitute.

I don't think so. Flat tax is fair as everyone pays the same tax rate. A consumption tax, on the other hand, is inherently regressive on income.

But you're right. Moot points since it ain't going to happen. Those that purchased the tax legislation we currently have like the loopholes and all that. Makes them pay less than their fair share and they won't have it any other way.

Why is a consumption tax regressive on income? It's only regressive on income if you assume that poor people spend as much as rich people. If that's true, the rich person is only rich on paper, because he receives the same goods and services as the poor person. Otherwise, the rich person pays more taxes because he buys nicer clothes, cars, food, vacations, houses, electronics, furniture, etc. So he pays more taxes.

And if he puts some money in the bank, then either he's saving for a bigger purchase or saving for a rainy day. Either way, he'll pay taxes in the end when he spends the money. Additionally, if he invests the money, even in a CD, then someone else is meanwhile spending the money.

Moreover, a consumption tax is better than a flat income tax, because you are charging people for using stuff, not for creating stuff. An income tax is inherently a penalty for putting in a hard days work and doing something useful. A consumption tax is a penalty for buying and using things. Whom do we want to penalize, producers or consumers?

Its regressive because of the percentage of income spent on taxes. A poorer person will spend much more as a percentage of their income on goods and services than a rich person would.

With tax systems, you can't really look at the amount paid in taxes, but how that amount relates to the persons overall income.

[NickD 203]

Do the math, IRS gets all the USA bucks back PROVIDED the buck stays here.

And think positive, instead of being concerned about illegals getting free healthcare, let's figure out a way to become illegal.

[rebeccajo 14]

The best thing we could do is eliminate all forms of corporate, payroll and income tax and replace it with a consumption tax introduce a flat rate income tax on each and every dollar earned - actively or passively.

Now I'm on board.

A flat tax is a weak sister substitute.

I don't think so. Flat tax is fair as everyone pays the same tax rate. A consumption tax, on the other hand, is inherently regressive on income.

But you're right. Moot points since it ain't going to happen. Those that purchased the tax legislation we currently have like the loopholes and all that. Makes them pay less than their fair share and they won't have it any other way.

Why is a consumption tax regressive on income? It's only regressive on income if you assume that poor people spend as much as rich people. If that's true, the rich person is only rich on paper, because he receives the same goods and services as the poor person. Otherwise, the rich person pays more taxes because he buys nicer clothes, cars, food, vacations, houses, electronics, furniture, etc. So he pays more taxes.

And if he puts some money in the bank, then either he's saving for a bigger purchase or saving for a rainy day. Either way, he'll pay taxes in the end when he spends the money. Additionally, if he invests the money, even in a CD, then someone else is meanwhile spending the money.

Moreover, a consumption tax is better than a flat income tax, because you are charging people for using stuff, not for creating stuff. An income tax is inherently a penalty for putting in a hard days work and doing something useful. A consumption tax is a penalty for buying and using things. Whom do we want to penalize, producers or consumers?

Because the poor pay a far larger percentage of their income with consumption taxes than the wealthy.

Do the basic math.

[Heracles 417]

Right now, 40% of Americans pay no income tax. That would no longer be the case. Under-reported income would no longer be an issue. Another 40% according to IRS estimates. Not to mention billions in cash income never claimed by anyone from a waitress to a prostitute to a drug dealer to an exotic dancer...all would be suject to tax when the money was spent.

You are consistently ignoring the fact that the proposed consumption tax would be revenue nuetral, that means the revenue generated would equal what is taken in now. Could it drop, or increase. YES Can it drop or increase now? YES Basing a tax on earnings during a recession is just as subject to losses as basing it on spending. Basing it on spending and creating a better business atmosphere, an atmosphere in which businesses WANT to make jobs, reduces the likelihood of recession. Many of our states operate quite nicely without income tax, many of them would make a fair sized developed country in themselves, why couldn't the federal government? In fact we DID operate without an income tax for more than 100 years through some of our most prosperous and progressive times.

I need to see research on this. Otherwise it's pie in the sky. It still does not explain what happens during a recession when people stop spending, yet still have jobs. A federal GST does exactly what you are suggesting and eliminates loopholes.

I have no intention of following along because everyone else does it. This is the USA, we do not do things like everyone else, we look for a better way...or at least we DID. I do not need to wait for some other country to show US the way, we need to show THEM and scoop up on tons of business before THEY do. Let THEM follow us. Let THEM try to get their businesses back.

You say that with pride, like you actually believe the country is achieving something. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but America is far from the envy of the developed world. The country also no longer ranks highly on many international rankings. Furthermore, this sort of attitude has led to the collapse of pretty much every super power. The average Joe here is actually quite poor compared to average Joe of other developed nations. Have you seen places in the mid-west or around various dilapidated cities that look like 2nd and even 3rd world countries? Is that what you call leading? Or ghetto after ghetto that plagues America. Maybe this is not an issue in Vermont but drive around the country and then come back and tell me you will show the world. Currently you are only showing the world how much of an embarrassment we are.

The biggest disservice being done to the country is people's lack of international exposure and experience; particularly in other first world countries. It's grossly delusional to assume you will lead the way and that America does need to learn from anyone else. This attitude amongst other things is what keeps America back. Basically saying your too good to learn from anyone else; it's freagin ridiculous.

Lay off the Rush a bit and you will see things more clearly. Maybe even take a trip to Aus.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Booyah!

[HYENA 4]

Right now, 40% of Americans pay no income tax. That would no longer be the case. Under-reported income would no longer be an issue. Another 40% according to IRS estimates. Not to mention billions in cash income never claimed by anyone from a waitress to a prostitute to a drug dealer to an exotic dancer...all would be suject to tax when the money was spent.

You are consistently ignoring the fact that the proposed consumption tax would be revenue nuetral, that means the revenue generated would equal what is taken in now. Could it drop, or increase. YES Can it drop or increase now? YES Basing a tax on earnings during a recession is just as subject to losses as basing it on spending. Basing it on spending and creating a better business atmosphere, an atmosphere in which businesses WANT to make jobs, reduces the likelihood of recession. Many of our states operate quite nicely without income tax, many of them would make a fair sized developed country in themselves, why couldn't the federal government? In fact we DID operate without an income tax for more than 100 years through some of our most prosperous and progressive times.

I need to see research on this. Otherwise it's pie in the sky. It still does not explain what happens during a recession when people stop spending, yet still have jobs. A federal GST does exactly what you are suggesting and eliminates loopholes.

I have no intention of following along because everyone else does it. This is the USA, we do not do things like everyone else, we look for a better way...or at least we DID. I do not need to wait for some other country to show US the way, we need to show THEM and scoop up on tons of business before THEY do. Let THEM follow us. Let THEM try to get their businesses back.

You say that with pride, like you actually believe the country is achieving something. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but America is far from the envy of the developed world. The country also no longer ranks highly on many international rankings. Furthermore, this sort of attitude has led to the collapse of pretty much every super power. The average Joe here is actually quite poor compared to average Joe of other developed nations. Have you seen places in the mid-west or around various dilapidated cities that look like 2nd and even 3rd world countries? Is that what you call leading? Or ghetto after ghetto that plagues America. Maybe this is not an issue in Vermont but drive around the country and then come back and tell me you will show the world. Currently you are only showing the world how much of an embarrassment we are.

The biggest disservice being done to the country is people's lack of international exposure and experience; particularly in other first world countries. It's grossly delusional to assume you will lead the way and that America does need to learn from anyone else. This attitude amongst other things is what keeps America back. Basically saying your too good to learn from anyone else; it's freagin ridiculous.

Lay off the Rush a bit and you will see things more clearly. Maybe even take a trip to Aus.

BTW I hate that katoey in the video...he needs a stroke and I wanna watch!

Having said that, it's true...the US is no longer the #1 superpower and if you want a lesson on health and well being and minimum corruption, look at the nordic countries (Norway, Denmark, etc). Their standard of living, education and just about everything beat the US hands down and they don't run their entire country on credit (people actually save money there).

The US is dependent on foreign demand to keep the USD high and demand is waning cause dollars are no longer the international currency so we're destined to be far worse off being off the gold standard than we ever were. THAT"s why we want to go invade Iran (and why we confabulated WMD's in Iraq....because Iraq was using the EU for oil and we needed USD used to buy oil and keep demand high). The US gov't sets the oil purchase price and they've had no choice but to raise it to keep demand for USD high.

It's a multi faceted problem but I can confirm with lots of research that the statistics and all the workings are true suggesting we'll be more like Mexico given enough time. China has eminent domain in the US now cause we had no more assets to pay the private ("federal reserve bank" for the last stimulus package (the one that the MAJORITY of Americans did not want but both parties (same behind the scenes) crammed it thru legislation.....you know, when the 5 BIL went "missing"...we're so corrput, down is the only way we can go!

Edited September 21, 2009 by HYENA