We've recently highlighted how right-to-work states, which the Biden Administration and Congressional…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Amazon Workers Soundly Reject Unionization, and NR's Kevin Williamson Highlights Another Great Reason Why: Big-Labor Corruption

We've recently highlighted how right-to-work states, which the Biden Administration and Congressional leftists hope to abolish, dramatically outperform forced-union states in terms of job growth, manufacturing and household consumption.  Worker freedom from Big Labor bosses is a leading reason why in a high-profile vote, Amazon workers in Alabama voted to reject unionization by a 71% to 29% margin last week.

In a phenomenal new piece, National Review's Kevin Williamson offers another reason for rejecting unionization that we mustn't ignore:  big labor bosses' widespread corruption.  Williamson lists a litany of union officials convicted and sentenced for embezzlement and other misuse of members' hard-earned dues - in 2020 alone.  Accordingly, the leftist anti-capitalist drumbeat…[more]

April 12, 2021 • 01:05 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Here Come the VAT, the Mother of All Taxes Print
By CFIF Staff
Wednesday, April 07 2010
Consideration of a VAT here and now has but two purposes: to support the big government that has already been visited upon us and to expand the even bigger government of President Obama’s dreams.

The Value Added Tax (VAT) cat is finally creeping out of its bag.  No longer is it just those hysterical rumor-mongers like columnist Charles Krauthammer speculating on the next national tax to be imposed by the Obama administration.  Now it’s none other than Obama economic adviser Paul Volcker telling the New York Historical Society that a VAT should be considered to get the deficit under control.  For good measure, he threw in taxes on carbon and energy.

According to the Reuters report of the meeting, “Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves.  ‘If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.”  (Volcker’s personal fondness for a VAT has not been secret.)

Since the president former Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker now serves is likely to go down in history as American champion of both entitlements and deficits, the Volcker pronouncement should come as no surprise to anyone other than those naifs who still cling to Obama’s false promises never to raise taxes on the middle class.

A VAT is the mother of all taxes.  It was born in France (where it accounts for about 50 percent of government revenue) in 1954, with bastard children now running wild, in differing forms, in more than 100 countries around the world, at rates that range from a low of 5 percent up to 25 percent.

Think of it as it is, a national sales tax imposed on virtually everything sold, with collections at every sales point (where value is added) from origin to ultimate consumer.  Like a traditional sales tax, it is relatively efficient and inexpensive to collect, just as easy to increase as desired.  Unlike a traditional sales tax, most of it is hidden in the ultimate cost of the goods.

Were a VAT to be considered as a replacement, and only as a replacement, for all other federal taxes, then it, as a concept, would be worthy of a strenuous national debate.  But that, to the best of our knowledge, has never happened in any country that has imposed a VAT, is not contemplated by those who propound it here now and would be almost impossible to achieve.  In addition, as the imposition of ObamaCare has proven, this has become a country where the majority will of the people is accorded no merit in what passes for national debate.  Of course you don’t want to be taxed more, but you have to be taxed more, because we must spend more and now we’ve got to pay down the deficit for what we’ve already been spending, plus all that more spending, so shut up and go to your room now.

Consideration of a VAT here and now has but two purposes:  to support the big government that has already been visited upon us and to expand the even bigger government of President Obama’s dreams.  Why a VAT?  Because, as Shawn Tully has written for CNNMoney.com, “it’s the only vehicle capable of raising the money to cover the gigantic projected increases in spending and deficits.”

Other than the occasional public utterance by the likes of Paul Volcker (who, without going into detail regarding his previous role as Fed Head, Ronald Reagan had to fire) and a growing number of warnings from seers like Krauthammer, talk about a VAT is going to be downplayed until after the November Midterm elections.

But consider the true VAT nightmare scenario.  If the Democrats lose their majority in one or both sides of the Capitol come November, a VAT could be pushed through a lame duck Congress as a parting gift to their dear leader.  Why the Democrats would do that, considering Obama’s blame in such a loss, is beyond our limited capacity at reasoning, but so was so many who have already clearly walked the plank to vote for ObamaCare, against the wishes of their constituents.

Even if that does not happen, there’s a VAT proposal in your future.  Bank on it.

Quiz Question   
In which century were the first mandatory vaccination laws enacted in the United States?
More Questions
Notable Quote   
 
"A Monday New York Times front page headline on the explosion at a key Iranian nuclear facility claimed the 'Attack May Hurt Efforts to Reboot 2015 Deal.' On Tuesday, also on the front page, the paper declared that 'Israel's Role in Iran Blast Casts A Shadow on U.S. Nuclear Talks'.Get it? Making a new deal with Iran is a very good thing, anything that hurts the chance is a very bad thing, including…[more]
 
 
—Michael Goodwin, New York Post
— Michael Goodwin, New York Post
 
Liberty Poll   

Is it a reasonable use of taxpayer money for the federal government to provide a new $100 billion in tax credits to purchasers of electric vehicles?