More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Sen. Fritz Hollings

Sen. Fritz Hollings

GET UPDATES FROM Sen. Fritz Hollings
 

The Vat Is Necessary

Posted: 05/10/11 02:31 PM ET

The big banks, the multi-nationals, and Wall Street are making big profits from the off-shoring of production and jobs. This keeps the market up, but the economy is going to pot. People are without jobs and will stay jobless unless we can stop the hemorrhage of off-shoring.

Oliver Wendell Holmes observed: "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society ..." While it's difficult, every mayor, every governor, each year pays for the government that the city or state provides. But when those same mayors or governors get to Congress, they become economists worrying about the economy. Taxes hurt the economy. Suddenly, everybody is against taxes. Congress goes into this off-Broadway show of all talk, no action -- cutting spending; closing loopholes; long-range plans to lower the debt; and fail-safe provisions for later Congresses to pay for government. As a result of this nonsense, at the end of this fiscal year Congress will have added $5 trillion to the national debt in four years.

Congress could easily eliminate deficit spending by cancelling the corporate income tax and replacing it with a 5 percent VAT. The 2010 corporate tax brought in $191.4 billion, whereas a 5 percent VAT brings in $583 billion. This actually amounts to a cut in taxes with more revenue. Exemptions of $83 billion for the low income leaves $300 billion to start paying down the debt. Since the VAT is rebated, this promotes exports and frees up $1 trillion in off-shore profits that Corporate America can repatriate to produce and create jobs.

The VAT solution is not just a good idea, but absolutely necessary. The problem is not just the off-shoring of production and jobs to China but the loss of production and jobs to Europe. Using its 19 percent VAT, which is rebated at export, Germany produces parts at high cost in Germany, ships the parts to Charleston, S. C., at a cost of 3 percent, assembles the parts at 3 percent cost, and produces windmills in the United States 13 percent cheaper than any U. S. production. The corporate income tax that is not rebated on export makes it difficult to produce for a profit in the United States and makes U. S. exports uncompetitive in globalization.

But front and center in the mind of every member of Congress is his or her job -- not the country's jobs. This takes contributions. Twelve years ago, in my race to be elected the seventh time to the United States Senate, I had to raise $8.5 million. Eight and a half million dollars factors out to $30 thousand a week, each week, every week, for six years. It's not just raising money the year ahead of election, it's raising money all six years. And Wall Street, the big banks, and the multi-nationals are the predominant contributors. Substituting the corporate tax for a VAT makes it profitable to produce in the United States, but the profit is not as big as off-shore profits.

Wall Street, the big banks, and multi-nationals are not concerned about the country's economy. All they care about is more and bigger profits. Multi-nationals get a tax break for off-shoring jobs. So Congress caters to the contributors. It continues the tax break for off-shoring jobs; refuses to even discuss a VAT; introduces bills "made in the U.S.A.," and engages in every fraud about creating jobs.

People are frustrated because there's all talk and no action on jobs and deficits. People are frustrated because our competitive country is not competing in globalization. To compete, to stop deficit spending, to create jobs, a value added tax is necessary.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rimser
10:56 AM on 05/11/2011
sounds too good to be true, and you know what they say about that...Something has to change, and a VAT would certainly be a part of the equation. I'm not so certain about eliminating corporate taxes in favor of replacing them with VAT. Eliminating tax loopholes that allow corporations to collect tax subsidies for off-shoring would be a better first step.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
10:26 AM on 05/11/2011
If you want to shift MORE of the tax burden from corporations and the wealthy onto the working class then yes, the VAT is the way to go. If that is NOT your PRIMARY GOAL then the VAT is harmful.
missprissanna
the weight of the news nearly broke my back
10:25 AM on 05/11/2011
VAT is the solution? What a concept, take even more from those who have little left.

Tax where the money is.....a luxury goods tax. WHY do buyers of yachts deserve to purchase a yacht and pay no taxes???

"A bill proposing to cap the sales tax for yachts at $18,000 has passed the Ways and Means Committee and will be considered by the full House

The current sales tax for yachts in Texas is 6.25 percent. If the bill is passed, sales for yachts costing more than $288,000 would get a tax break.

“This is a jobs bill, not a tax break for the so-called rich,” Greg Allison, member of the Gulf Coast Yacht Brokers Association, said. “A $300,000 boat is not a large boat anymore.”"

A $300K BOAT ISN'T A LARGE BOAT ANYMORE, BUT TEACHERS ARE BREAKING THE BANK???

A financial transaction tax would not cause any Wall Street traders to cut back on basic survival needs.

There is nothing fair about this economic crisis, but it shouldn't be all on the shoulders of the poor, working poor and middle class to suffer and sacrifice so that the haves and have mores can continue to rob us blind.
08:15 AM on 05/11/2011
I agree with the thrust of this and I am glad that Senator Hollings is raising these issues, but if you just take down the corporate rate and replace it with a VAT, you will shift money from working folk to the rich and you'll have to deal with individuals tax shelter schemes. You can do the same thing through a somewhat different mechanism that eliminates these problems. See http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7942051/the_tax_reform_hearings_are_missing.html?cat=3 and http://www.sharedeconomicgrowth.org . Then you can use a VAT to replace all or part of the FICA taxes on work, making it a progressive VAT. America can become the best place on the planet for corporations to put their high-value, high-wage operations, and we can do it in an efficient and progressive manner.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
10:27 AM on 05/11/2011
ANY scheme where the VAT plays a significant role shifts the tax burden from corporations and the wealthy to the working class. That's the PURPOSE of a VAT tax.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcaunter
Profile: schizoid, INTJ, IQ145
01:14 AM on 05/11/2011
IF you are proposing that the VAT be levied equally on financial products and transactions, I might be willing to entertain the idea that this isn't just another idea developed by corporate think tanks to enrich Wall bankers at the expense of the poor.

Come on Senator Hollings. You support taxing financial churn equally with your VAT, and I'll support it period.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rtx47
10:41 PM on 05/10/2011
Advantage of the VAT tax is the forward movement it will have on 'raising revenues' to pay off the debt; along with reducing the budget, and eliminating corporate welfare for which there is general consensus.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
10:29 AM on 05/11/2011
Except the only thing the VAT does it shift the tax burden from the wealthy and the corporations onto the "working class" which has less and less to spend. This doesn't "pay off the debt", this just makes the rich richer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anym
Obama is GoldmanSachs
10:03 PM on 05/10/2011
I am sorry but tell me how a national sales tax(VAT) doesn't absolutely gut the middle and lower class.
10:49 PM on 05/10/2011
Of course the VAT tax will be paid by the people.

And the lower classes will be able to buy less......

The lower classes always get it in the end!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
10:30 AM on 05/11/2011
No, actually, screwing over the poor in this nation is something we agreed to in 1980. Before that for nearly 40 years we did the opposite to one degree or another.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
09:34 PM on 05/10/2011
"To compete, to create jobs, a value added tax is necessary."
 
I squirm whenever I see that word combo. Most often the line "to compete, to create jobs" is followed by an attempt to sell me a pig in a poke. Add to that the claim that VAT would counter offshore jobs going to China(!) and a red flag goes up. Hey, maybe it'll do exactly as he says but my 'spider sense' is tingling on this. I've found whenever someone promises the sky most often all you wind up with is hot air.
iridium53
Semper Fi
05:56 PM on 05/10/2011
Senator Hollings, you are a great guy with some great ideas.

This may even be one of them.

I cannot agree with you to substantially change, or even address, the tax system at this time.

What we KNOW about the current makeup of Congress is that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the very rich. Democrats are different from Tea-Publicans only in the degree to which they will work exclusively for the rich and military-industrial complex companies.

In the past twelve years the concentration of income in the nation has gone from 7% for the top 1% to 23%. That change in concentration did not happen by accident.

Congress, all of Congress, and the President, have decided to work against the people of the United States and for the elite 1% only.

Substantial changes in the tax code, at this time, would inevitably be perverted to increase the speed at which corporate feudalism is increasing.

A change, like a VAT tax, would be set up to increase the suffering of the poor and working class and enhance the income of the already rich.

The President agreed to a policy of not increasing taxes on the wealthy. Tea-Publicans are actively working to destroy the economy by forcing a failure to honor our financial commitments. We spend more on country-building in Iraq and Afghanistand than we do on Americans.