More Taxes! Yessss!

[badsekktor]

bawasan ang congressmen, senators....

tanggalin ang party list.... bawasan ang board members saka city councilors pati baranggay councilors tanggalin na din... for sure malaking chunk ang matitipid nila.....

bawasan din cdf saka allowances....

[niwde11]

^^thats the best solution. Congress is to expensive to maintain. kumbaga di na sya feasible imaintain sa laki nya
Tax collection cannot be solved by a single president. kumbaga it is a continous process dahil nagaadjust din ang nandadaya. unfoftunately laging 2 steps advance ang nandadaya.
and ang mentality kasi ng gobyerno natin e kung sino yung me pambayad e yun ang gigipitin regardless kung tama sya magbayad ng tax para lang mareach ang collection target. wala man lang sila forecast ng business community kung how much expected tax na makokocollect nila. kaya kahit down ang business environment pilit pa rin sila nangongolekta para mareach ang target collection.

[niky]

Mental retardation at its finest

From experience?

We do have exemption for minimum wage earners on income tax... And I support that... The problem of VAT kasi is its REGRESSIVE while income tax is PROGRESSIVE. Regressive meaning no matter how rich or poor you are the tax burden is the same. So a tricycle driver buying gas at P45/L will pay the same VAT vs a corrupt politician gassing up his escorts American SUV at P45/L so same lang VAT nila... Whilst pag income tax the tricycle driver might not even have to pay income tax while the politician (assuming he does not evade it) will most certainly have to pay income tax... VAT is the European model, I prefer the American model of taxation where there is high income tax but NO VAT or consumption tax...

How can you call one regressive and one progressive? Both our VAT and income taxes take the same percentage from rich and poor. In both cases, the rich pay more tax.

We don't have a sliding tax rate that gives a higher percentage tax to the rich. And yet, if we increase VAT, the rich will be paying slightly more for their luxuries than before, increasing income for the government.

RE: American model: yeah... Income tax, but tons of tax breaks for the rich... ...and if you're rich and the economy collapses, bailout money for you.

Yes but because you are consuming more that's why you pay more tax. Tignan mo lang at a unit price then. Sige gas was a bad example since rich people use more gas than poor. How about food. While in general rich people still spend more on food, its safe to say rich and poor people have the same appetite. Example bumili ka ng Chickenjoy sa Jollibee... That 2 piece meal is priced the same and has the same VAT for a minimum wager buying that 2 pc. VS a CEO buying that same 2 piece... In essence on a PER UNIT BASIS talo talaga ang mas mahirap...

If you're eating at Jollibee, you're not minimum wage. Minimum wage earners buy their food from the wet market and provincial markets... from street stalls... the so-called "underground economy" where VAT is not implemented. (Yes, I buy my fish and vegetables from the street markets, too). Fuel for public transport is VAT-exempt, too.

If you're eating from Jollibee, you likely fall into the range I was talking about... 8000 pesos plus per month. More likely you're at 15,000 pesos a month. From 15,000 pesos, you're saving 1,350 a month from lower income tax, which will more than offset your monthly expense increase from a 3% increase in VAT.

Pero kung income tax naka base yan sa income mo. Now its true VAT is less prone to cheating because its factored to the price, but then again as I stated its more punishing to poorer people...

VAT is also easy to cheat, come on. Every time you buy at a store and they ask you if it's okay that they don't give a receipt, that's cheating on VAT.

Again, daily necessities are affected less by VAT.

Eto medyo mas complex economics na din. Higher VAT favors savings over consumption. Yes on a personal economics, savings is a good thing pero for the greater economy SPENDING is better than SAVING. If people save and scrimp business will lose sales, lose sales will mean firing people, firing people means even less consumption since wala na silang trabaho and the economic downward spiral continues.

While it is true that VAT over income tax will favor savings over consumption, proper balancing can actually encourage more consumption. Giving people thousands of extra pesos a month to spend will be more of an incentive for greater spending than charging them a few hundred a month more for their purchases. This will depend on whether VAT is also applied to raw materials as well as finished goods, but from what I remember, there are exemptions on raw materials, also, to encourage local production.

-

Yes, the poor won't be able to buy luxuries as easily, but the burden of tax is more fairly placed on consumption than income. It doesn't make sense to punish a person for being more productive by leveling a greater tax on them, but it makes sense to tax a person more for having more disposable income to waste on frivolities (which is why I agree with a luxury tax on "sin goods" and luxury automobiles). The uber-rich have a lot of cash to spend. That guy who bought a Porsche 911 Turbo has, in one purchase, paid more taxes than thousands of poor people will in a year.

-

I agree, though, that the government should focus first on curing inefficiencies in the system, but a move from income to sales tax isn't as bad you think.

[niwde11]

for sure kasi yung mga tao sa paligid nya nagdikta na "No new taxes" during pre-election time. di mo pwedeng sabihin na new taxes pag naelect, para mong sinaksak sarili mo,:D. etong mga taong ito ay isisisi lang sa iba(like to gloria, etc) kaya sasabihing need nila mag add ng new taxes. come, on, ang ating bansa ay parang isang naluluging company. output is always greater than the input. need natin ay isang master plan to be self sufficient. and pray the next president will continue it.

[uls]

"Read my lips, no new taxes"

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP9_kkzfN-w"]YouTube- George H. W. Bush[/ame]

he raised taxes later

[Chikselog]

"Read my lips, no new taxes"

The biggest lie of presidential candidates?

Woooooot! Baka may magalit na naman. :rofl:

[tidus1203]

Hahahaha thats why he lost to Clinton in 1992... I wonder why the Bush's hate taxes even the son had a tax break which is about to expire...

[daimengrui]

Hahahaha thats why he lost to Clinton in 1992... I wonder why the Bush's hate taxes even the son had a tax break which is about to expire...

They don't hate taxes. They hate bigger government. The republican tax policy is to cut taxes. Be it income tax, capital gains, or corporate, they want it lower.

[daimengrui]

The biggest lie of presidential candidates?

Woooooot! Baka may magalit na naman. :rofl:

I agree. It's a certified flip flop. Hindi man lang naghintay ng 100 days si Noy. He's worse than his sister in making uneducated comments out of the fly!

[uls]

Bush couldnt keep his promise

wiki:

When in office, Bush found it challenging to keep his promise. The Bush campaign's figures had been based on the assumption that the high growth of the late 1980s would continue throughout his time in office.[8] Instead, a recession began. By 1990, rising deficits, fueled by a growth in mandatory spending and a declining economy, began to greatly increase the federal deficit.

Noynoy is inheriting a large budget deficit

he has campaign promises to fulfill

one of them is to lift the poor out of poverty right?

if he cuts govt spending, he can't help the poor

so he has to go in the other direction -- which is to spend

which means more borrowing

which means more govt revenue goes to debt servicing

which means the govt has to collect more taxes

[tidus1203]

They don't hate taxes. They hate bigger government. The republican tax policy is to cut taxes. Be it income tax, capital gains, or corporate, they want it lower.

Hate bigger government? Parang lumaki nga si Uncle Sam during the Bush jr. years... May bagong mga departments pang ginawa... Department of Homeland Security which sa totoo lang baka pwede na lang gawing Bureau or Commission na lang under the Department of Defense at least wala ng isang whole cabinet position...

[uls]

They don't hate taxes. They hate bigger government. The republican tax policy is to cut taxes. Be it income tax, capital gains, or corporate, they want it lower.

but the Republicans screwed up

the financial crisis happened under Bush

their policies failed

that's why Americans voted Obama into office

it's a vote against Republicans

[daimengrui]

but the Republicans screwed up

the financial crisis happened under Bush

their policies failed

No not just the Republicans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed because of Democrats. Under Republican watch no less. Both sides have bloodied hands. But it was the Democrats that passed legislation that allowed people with bad credit scores from borrowing and borrowing.

You can't really say that the taxation policy has the direct effect of the '08 collapse. It was indiscriminate borrowing as a result of that legislation.

For the sake of reference the name of the legislation in question is the Community Reinvestment Act.

[uls]

like it or not, it's now the era of big govt

the US economy is being supported entirely by the USG and the Fed

it is now the era of slow growth and high taxation

[daimengrui]

Hate bigger government? Parang lumaki nga si Uncle Sam during the Bush jr. years... May bagong mga departments pang ginawa... Department of Homeland Security which sa totoo lang baka pwede na lang gawing Bureau or Commission na lang under the Department of Defense at least wala ng isang whole cabinet position...

I will have to agree with this. Government spending did balloon in the Bush years. It was all spent in the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. If there was any company that benefited the most from this. It was Cheney's Halliburton

Bush did not follow the doctrine quite "religiously". That is why he failed. The war expenses, plus the housing mess all contributed to the meltdown.

[daimengrui]

like it or not, it's now the era of big govt

the US economy is being supported entirely by the USG and the Fed

it is now the era of slow growth and high taxation

No disagreement in that. But that era you are saying may be short lived. Already the incumbents are losing in the US Primaries. Come Nov. it will be a more hostile Congress for Obama.

[niwde11]

OT na yata. napunta na kay Uncle Sam' taxes. etc.

[uls]

No not just the Republicans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed because of Democrats. Under Republican watch no less. Both sides have bloodied hands. But it was the Democrats that passed legislation that allowed people with bad credit scores from borrowing and borrowing.

You can't really say that the taxation policy has the direct effect of the '08 collapse. It was indiscriminate borrowing as a result of that legislation.

For the sake of reference the name of the legislation in question is the Community Reinvestment Act.

yes i know about the CRA

everyone should own a house

even people who can't afford it

Fannie Mae

Freddie Mac

Ginnie Mae

--

everyone can get higher education

Sallie Mae

--

healthcare

Medicare, Medicaid

--

pension

social security

[daimengrui]

OT na yata. napunta na kay Uncle Sam' taxes. etc.

Yes I suppose so. To be back on topic. I guess higher taxation can be justified if it can TRANSLATE directly into TANGIBLE SERVICES.

If I see an improvement in Government Services, then I'll be happy to pay the additional burden.

But it better not go to Congressmen's Range Rover vehicles or I'll go berserk, I'll buy anti tank weapons and shoot each "8" plated RR's i see on the road!

[uls]

OT na yata. napunta na kay Uncle Sam' taxes. etc.

hehe

my fault

i posted Bush kasi