Front Page           
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
American Fifth Column
Culture Wars             
Headlines                 
Analysis               
NMJ Radio          
NMJ TV               
Analysis Archive
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google


See blogs and businesses for USA
About AJ DiCintio
A.J. DiCintio is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. He first exercised his polemical skills arguing with friends on the street corners of the working class neighborhood where he grew up. Retired from teaching, he now applies those skills, somewhat honed and polished by experience, to social/political affairs.
Social Bookmarking

Recent Articles
A Tax Snake in the Grass
Bad Gifting as Metaphor
Obama’s Narrative & Afghanistan
Prostitution & The Healthcare Bill
The Viruses That Killed at Fort Hood
Prize Winner Perversity
Healthcare: Who Are the Know-Nothings?
Let’s Kill All the Tomatoes!
It's Not a War Against FOX News
Beware CBO Healthcare Estimates
(Let's Hope) We’re Not Gonna Take It Anymore
Hyperpartisanship, Propaganda & Hypocrisy
Afghanistan & Sherman's Legacy
Epistemology, Materialists & Morality
Cleaning Up the House
Worse Than the Stench of the Stable
Obama's Shameful Education Affair
Healthcare Reform: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
The Real (Audaciously Arrogant) Mob
News Anchor Uncles
Goldman Sachs America
Krugman & The Boiled Frog

American Aristocrats
Long After the Last Cow Has Come Home
Obama Being Obama
Liberals and The Big Hate
The Frog-Worship Scandal
Thomas Jefferson: Don’t Question a Supreme Court Nominee Without Him
I Never Knew That!
Language: A Canary in the Coal Mine II
Language: A Canary in the Coal Mine
Colin Powell Comes Up Small
Headlines, Torture & American Values
Something Very Deep and Dark
Miss California’s Unforgivable Mistake
The President in the Garden
Liberals & The Triumph of Reason
Fear
Messiah, Lincoln or Less?
Obama, Big Bangs & Selling Make Believe
Hostile Alien Case Exposes Danger of Activist...
The Age of Arrogance
Lenin Lite, Perhaps?
Where’s the Guilt?
In the Matter of Public v. Stimulus Bill
Bigger Than the Bacon Explosion
Where Bill O’Reilly’s Going Wrong
Dear Camille
Liberals, Israel & Wolves
Sarkozy, Israel & The Neurotic Mind
The Problem with Hope
The Winter Solstice & the Triumph of Reason
Bush & Obama: Slouching Us Toward Disaster...
Beware the Recovery Plan
New Deal Not Such a Big Deal?
Republicans & The Courts
That Flatulent Thing Called Experience
Can Obama Call Spirits from the Vasty Deep?
A Million Calls, Ten Million Voters
Liberals Boiling, Conservatives Not, But...
The Merely Human Messiah and the Sea
Fully Understanding the Bill Ayres “Distraction”
How McCain Can Deliver a Last Round KO
Obama & The English Language
Are Americans Really Open to Obama’s New Ideas?
Love Behind the Most Rotten Golden Parachute of All
McCain & Reagan’s Broad Shoulders
When Conservatives Behave like Liberals
Maddening Times at the Gray Lady

AJ DiCintio

A Tax Snake in the Grass
December 18, 2009

Catherine Rampell’s NY Times article about the value added tax (“Many See the VAT Option as a Cure for Deficits”) evokes a number of reactions, one of the most important of which is “Who are the many”?

 

Now, before that question is answered, a definition of the VAT, a brief example of how it works, and a few comments about it are in order:

 

Basically, the VAT requires a business to pay a tax on a product it sells, minus VAT previously paid in the item’s production.

 

For example, here is what happens when a dining room table is produced and sold under a 5% VAT. To keep things simple, the presumption is that wood is the only commodity needed in the process.

 

1. A logging company sells a $100 load of logs to a finishing mill, adds a $5 VAT to the bill, and remits the tax to the government.

 

2. After milling the logs, the mill sells the resulting lumber to a furniture manufacturer for $200 plus 5% VAT for a total of $210. However, the mill remits only $5 to the government because it gets to subtract the $5 VAT it paid on the purchase of the logs.

 

3. Having completed the table, the furniture manufacturer sells it to a furniture store for $600 plus $30 VAT but sends the government only $20 because its research discovers that $10 had previously been paid in VAT taxes on the item.

 

4. Finally, the furniture store sells the table to a customer for $800 plus $40 VAT but remits only $10 to the government because it learns that $30 in VAT had previously been paid in manufacturing the product.

 

5. In the end, the government has received a total of $40 VAT (5% of the table’s final price).

 

As is abundantly clear, a VAT is a sales tax, except that it is collected from a number of sources instead of one.

 

And like a sales tax, it is a regressive tax, a problem that politicians will be happy to mitigate with a million loopholes.

 

Also like a sales tax, the VAT will be politically impossible to apply to certain products, for example, those sold by the very well-connected financial industry. Therefore, politicians will exempt Wall Street from the VAT, ironically pointing out (perhaps correctly) that the “value” it “adds” to the products it sells is impossible for any mortal to discern let alone quantify.

 

However off-putting are those problems of the VAT, politicians go gaga over its efficiency because they don’t have to do much except sit back and collect the tribute they love only second to power.

 

Indeed, it is that very fact that allows Rampell to report the following:

 

“...every other industrialized country in the world already has a value-added tax (as do about 100 emerging countries).”

 

Well, surprise, surprise that politicians — who loathe efficiency with the energy of a million billion stars — gush a galaxy of lust over it when the subject is collecting taxes.

 

Yet, as violently as the VAT’s efficiency sends their breasts heaving, politicians do not find it the tax’s most alluring attribute; for it is the VAT’s hidden quality that has them scribbling love poems that begin, “VAT is a rose is a rose is a rose.”

 

Ah, the tax that consumers believe isn’t passed on.

 

Though you-know-who always pays a sales tax in the end.

 

The tax that politicians can raise easily but only for “very important purposes.”

 

Every you-know-who may not know it; but the truth is that the orgiastic spree of the past year notwithstanding, Washington’s appetite for taxing and spending still is and forever will be shamelessly prodigal and rapaciously insatiable.

 

The painless tax the public won’t complain about.

 

But every you and who in the nation ought to demand that taxes be painful. After all, the following statement by the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center has crucially important applications far beyond medicine: “The purpose of pain is to warn you of impending injury, or injury that has already occurred.”

 

The unhappy truths about the VAT revealed, it is now time to identify those who would love to implement such a tax. And Rampell’s article serves the purpose well:

 

“...this once-taboo policy option has recently been invoked ...by many prominent Washingtonians, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi; John Podesta, who was co-chairman of President Obama’s transition team; and two former Federal Reserve chairmen, Alan Greenspan and Paul A. Volcker.”

 

Good work by Ms. Rampell. However, because she must have been fearful of running afoul of the NY Times’ strict standards regarding objective reporting, she didn’t put the “prominent Washingtonians” in context.

 

So, I’ll do the job.

 

They are madly tax, insanely borrow, schizophrenically spend Democrats (joined by far too many Republicans crazed over power and money) who are irrevocably committed to controlling every aspect of American life from the level of government most remote from the people.

 

And they are Wizard of Oz financial gurus whose immersion in the arrogant, incestuous culture of Washington’s salons keeps them so meticulously removed from reality that in 2005, they didn’t know enough even to peep a warning when the ratio of home price to buyer’s income blew through the (outrageously mortgaged) roof — as far, in the key market of Miami, to an insane 9:1.

 

The answer to the question about the “many” actually tells us all we need to know about the VAT, including that we should never describe it with laudatory expressions.

 

Rather, words such as insidious and dangerous ought to come to mind.

 

Or the inestimably valuable phrase bequeathed to us by the ancients:

 

...like a snake in the grass.

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The New Media Journal.us © 2010
A Division of BasicsProject.org