Quote from: Supposn on January 02, 2014, 11:16:39 PM
Dan, Similar to NY State's sales tax, there's no reason that an enacted VAT could not be drafted as to require the amount and rate of sales tax be explicitly itemized upon sale transactions' billing invoices and receipts.  The concept of VAT itself is not any more or less transparent than any other method of general sales tax.

Unlike ALL other methods of sales tax I'm aware of, the sales tax paid within any VAT links of sales transaction chains are up to that link's time, reflect the entire net tax revenues received by all VAT government jurisdictions regardless of the numbers of VAT sales transactions or jurisdictions the sales items have been passed through.

We apparently perceive a different trend.

Respectfully, Supposn

You are missing the point. It is not transaparent to the consumers because the tax charged to people up stream from the final sale are enbedded in the cost of the retailers down stream. 

Quote from: Dan on January 02, 2014, 11:35:00 PM
You are missing the point. It is not transaparent to the consumers because the tax charged to people up stream from the final sale are enbedded in the cost of the retailers down stream.

Dan, you missed the point of Value Added Tax.
Each seller up stream has deducted the entire VATs they have paid from the VATs they collected before passing the difference on to the government's treasury Department. 

The aggregate totals of ALL governments' net VAT revenues are the explicitly stated Vat paid by the final purchasers that are not registered VAT collectors on behalf of their governments; [i.e. there is no hidden VAT imbedded within the prices of billing invoices' or sales receipts' items.  The VAT rates and amounts explicitly stated within those bills and receipts are the entire VATs].

This is true regardless of how many sales transactions or VAT governments' jurisdictions the purchased items have passed through within any particular link of commercial sales transactions chains.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on January 03, 2014, 05:53:47 AM
Dan, you missed the point of Value Added Tax.
Each seller up stream has deducted the entire VATs they have paid from the VATs they collected before passing the difference on to the government's treasury Department. 

The aggregate totals of ALL governments' net VAT revenues are the explicitly stated Vat paid by the final purchasers that are not registered VAT collectors on behalf of their governments; [i.e. there is no hidden VAT imbedded within the prices of billing invoices' or sales receipts' items.  The VAT rates and amounts explicitly stated within those bills and receipts are the entire VATs].

This is true regardless of how many sales transactions or VAT governments' jurisdictions the purchased items have passed through within any particular link of commercial sales transactions chains.

Respectfully, Supposn

I understand the mechanics of how a VAT tax works. But each upstream seller remits more than they collected. Ie additional compliance costs as well as the actual tax payments.

Once again, lack of transparency and hidden cost being passed on to the consumers.

Quote from: Dan on January 03, 2014, 01:15:18 PM
I understand the mechanics of how a VAT tax works. But each upstream seller remits more than they collected. Ie additional compliance costs as well as the actual tax payments.

Once again, lack of transparency and hidden cost being passed on to the consumers.

Dan, you can't reads or perform arithmetic calculations in a manner different from the rest of us?

From the VAT that an enterprise collects, they deduct the vat that they paid and pass on to their government the difference between them.
That's certainly less than the VAT they collected and it's similar to ALL governments' VAT administrations.

The administration and enforcement expenditures of Vat are no greater and due to the greater inducement for enterprises to comply and Vat's clearer audit trail, VATs' losses due to tax evasions are generally acknowledged to be less than other general sales tax administration methods.  It's generally acknowledged that VAT losses due to tax evasions are less than all other general sales tax methods of administration.

What hidden costs are you referring to?  There's absolutely no past or current Vat imbedded within the prices of individual or total item prices explicitly stated within billing invoices or sales receipts.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on January 03, 2014, 08:53:19 PM
Dan, you can't reads or perform arithmetic calculations in a manner different from the rest of us?

From the VAT that an enterprise collects, they deduct the vat that they paid and pass on to their government the difference between them.
That's certainly less than the VAT they collected and it's similar to ALL governments' VAT administrations.

The administration and enforcement expenditures of Vat are no greater and due to the greater inducement for enterprises to comply and Vat's clearer audit trail, VATs' losses due to tax evasions are generally acknowledged to be less than other general sales tax administration methods.  It's generally acknowledged that VAT losses due to tax evasions are less than all other general sales tax methods of administration.

What hidden costs are you referring to?  There's absolutely no past or current Vat imbedded within the prices of individual or total item prices explicitly stated within billing invoices or sales receipts.

Respectfully, Supposn

I don't know who's nuttier, us for arguing with a fool out of his league, or you, for espousing the ideals of an overbearing govt?
I swear, you sound like a commie espousing the benefits of over taxation and lower wages, because it's for the greater good.

But you said this.

Quote
The administration and enforcement expenditures of Vat are no greater and due to the greater inducement for enterprises to comply and Vat's clearer audit trail, VATs' losses due to tax evasions are generally acknowledged to be less than other general sales tax administration methods.

I explained to you once before how VAT was intrusive and costly to business and you denied that to be the case, as if I had made the whole thing up.
But take what you just said, and if you're smart enough, you'll figure it out all on your own..
So I'll put it in the form of a question, why do you think it's harder to evade taxes under VAT?

Keep in mind, I explained how VAT is a burden on the employer, it's an invasion of the private sector, allowing govt to intrude into every aspect of private industry, giving them a death grip on the free mkt. something you claimed to be false, so tell me my little commie friend, why is it so much tougher to evade taxes under VAT?

Quote from: Supposn on January 03, 2014, 08:53:19 PM
Dan, you can't reads or perform arithmetic calculations in a manner different from the rest of us?

From the VAT that an enterprise collects, they deduct the vat that they paid and pass on to their government the difference between them.
That's certainly less than the VAT they collected and it's similar to ALL governments' VAT administrations.

The administration and enforcement expenditures of Vat are no greater and due to the greater inducement for enterprises to comply and Vat's clearer audit trail, VATs' losses due to tax evasions are generally acknowledged to be less than other general sales tax administration methods.  It's generally acknowledged that VAT losses due to tax evasions are less than all other general sales tax methods of administration.

What hidden costs are you referring to?  There's absolutely no past or current Vat imbedded within the prices of individual or total item prices explicitly stated within billing invoices or sales receipts.

Respectfully, Supposn

Hidden costs are taxes being paid by upstream producers that the consumer will not see when they pay for something. The upstream producer raises the price they charge their customers to pay for the vat tax. That price increase is eventually being passed on to the final consumer. That is what I mean by a hidden tax. The voter is not able to appreciate what portion of the price they pay is being used to finance your secular progressive utopia. All they see is the portion being paid by the person selling the item to them.

Quote from: Solar on January 04, 2014, 05:10:50 AM
... I explained to you once before how VAT was intrusive and costly to business and you denied that to be the case, as if I had made the whole thing up. ...
...so tell me my little commie friend, why is it so much tougher to evade taxes under VAT?

Solar, you have not explained, you have claimed VAT was (more) intrusive and costly to business (than other general sales tax administrative methods).

I have explicitly described the data required of NY enterprises filing their quarterly sales tax reporting returns are required to provide.  The data does not significantly differ from what Great Britain enterprises are required to provide when reporting their VAT activity to their nation's treasury and I suppose it does not significantly differ from the filings of U.S. enterprises in other sales taxing states.  The "ball is now in your court".

Regarding the extent of tax evasion within VAT and other sales tax systems:

Enterprises deduct the VAT they paid from the VAT they collected, and pass on only the difference to the government.  Enterprises' reporting significant understated VAT collections or overstated their VAT paid in the course of conducting their purchases would be filing amounts proportionally relative to each other that are a typical of similar enterprises with regard to their size and industrial categories.

This would soon attract notice by the Treasury Department's computer programs that analyze enterprises' data it digests and enters into the department's accounting systems.  Such enterprises will certainly be subject to more careful examination by the enforcers of the sales tax.

Unlike non VAT purchasers, commercial purchasers are less likely to request that a sales transaction not be recorded because why risk a criminal act if they would otherwise recover their ENTIRE VAT expenditures.

Great Britain's VAT system is simplified by not waiving sales taxes to those providing their tax ID numbers.  Rather than immediate tax waiver for the purchaser, the purchaser benefits from a compensating cash flow because they in turn collect the VAT for all their sales regardless of purchaser's tax-ID.

The advantage to government's tax revenue is that in cases of any tax evasion, only the NET VAT of the specific transaction within which the evasion occurred, is in jeopardy.  The VAT from all prior and following links of the compromised sales transaction chains are collected.

There are no particular capitalistic or socialistic methods of taxation; there are simply differing administrating methods.  Your last comment does not reveal ignorance, but is simply foolish.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on January 04, 2014, 11:15:36 AM
Solar, you have not explained, you have claimed VAT was (more) intrusive and costly to business (than other general sales tax administrative methods).

I have explicitly described the data required of NY enterprises filing their quarterly sales tax reporting returns are required to provide.  The data does not significantly differ from what Great Britain enterprises are required to provide when reporting their VAT activity to their nation's treasury and I suppose it does not significantly differ from the filings of U.S. enterprises in other sales taxing states.  The "ball is now in your court".

Regarding the extent of tax evasion within VAT and other sales tax systems:

Enterprises deduct the VAT they paid from the VAT they collected, and pass on only the difference to the government.  Enterprises' reporting significant understated VAT collections or overstated their VAT paid in the course of conducting their purchases would be filing amounts proportionally relative to each other that are a typical of similar enterprises with regard to their size and industrial categories.

This would soon attract notice by the Treasury Department's computer programs that analyze enterprises' data it digests and enters into the department's accounting systems.  Such enterprises will certainly be subject to more careful examination by the enforcers of the sales tax.

Unlike non VAT purchasers, commercial purchasers are less likely to request that a sales transaction not be recorded because why risk a criminal act if they would otherwise recover their ENTIRE VAT expenditures.

Great Britain's VAT system is simplified by not waiving sales taxes to those providing their tax ID numbers.  Rather than immediate tax waiver for the purchaser, the purchaser benefits from a compensating cash flow because they in turn collect the VAT for all their sales regardless of purchaser's tax-ID.

The advantage to government's tax revenue is that in cases of any tax evasion, only the NET VAT of the specific transaction within which the evasion occurred, is in jeopardy.  The VAT from all prior and following links of the compromised sales transaction chains are collected.

There are no particular capitalistic or socialistic methods of taxation; there are simply differing administrating methods.  Your last comment does not reveal ignorance, but is simply foolish.

Respectfully, Supposn

I will not repeat myself, look back through the thread, my answer ids there.

Yet you fail to comprehend my question, "why is it so much tougher to evade taxes under VAT?"
Come on, I know you know the answer, just spit it out, "More Bureaucracy"!

I think it is so touching that supposn is so worried about the government's tax collections. 

Quote from: Dan on January 04, 2014, 12:24:22 PM
I think it is so touching that supposn is so worried about the government's tax collections. 

And willing to sacrifice free mkt entrepreneurs profit, to fill govt coffers.

Obviously, he's never been in business, he doesn't understand a business owner works on a very thin profit margin, with which he either grows his business, or does without for himself.
Supposn seems to be under the illusion business owners have the capital to hire a staff to deal with govt bureaucracy,

Quote from: Solar on January 04, 2014, 12:52:28 PM
And willing to sacrifice free mkt entrepreneurs profit, to fill govt coffers.

Obviously, he's never been in business, he doesn't understand a business owner works on a very thin profit margin, with which he either grows his business, or does without for himself.
Supposn seems to be under the illusion business owners have the capital to hire a staff to deal with govt bureaucracy,

I am thinking he is a government worker, working for a endless cash flow.  That way if you have 10 step you can tax each step each year and only the business owners know what they were taxed and when.  The end user do not see a tax.  Only the cost of the end product that s/he is paying for.   Right now all I see is the state tax I pay when I buy something.  I am not a fool to think all cost are not passed on to the end customer even in this day and age. 

Quote from: walkstall on January 04, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I am thinking he is a government worker, working for a endless cash flow.  That way if you have 10 step you can tax each step each year and only the business owners know what they were taxed and when.  The end user do not see a tax.  Only the cost of the end product that s/he is paying for.   Right now all I see is the state tax I pay when I buy something.  I am not a fool to think all cost are not passed on to the end customer even in this day and age.

And that's the thing, 7%+ sales tax seems high, but a VAT pushing 30% is absorbed into the price, the end user never sees it.
Since the end purchaser never really sees it on the receipt, it becomes an "out of sight, out of mind" issue.
I don't know one state that could function if there was a 25% sales tax added at the end of a transaction, the people would vote with their feet and bail on the state.

Quote from: Solar on January 04, 2014, 01:25:39 PM
And that's the thing, 7%+ sales tax seems high, but a VAT pushing 30% is absorbed into the price, the end user never sees it.
Since the end purchaser never really sees it on the receipt, it becomes an "out of sight, out of mind" issue.
I don't know one state that could function if there was a 25% sales tax added at the end of a transaction, the people would vote with their feet and bail on the state.

Washington state tax is 6.5%  then you have cities add on additional percentages.  That is add to the 6.5% they do not break it down. 

Quote from: walkstall on January 04, 2014, 01:16:35 PM
I am thinking he is a government worker, working for a endless cash flow.  That way if you have 10 step you can tax each step each year and only the business owners know what they were taxed and when.  The end user do not see a tax.  Only the cost of the end product that s/he is paying for.   Right now all I see is the state tax I pay when I buy something.  I am not a fool to think all cost are not passed on to the end customer even in this day and age.

I'm guessing he is some sheltered 14 or 15 year old kid who has read something and thinks he knows everything.

Quote from: Solar on January 04, 2014, 01:25:39 PM
And that's the thing, 7%+ sales tax seems high, but a VAT pushing 30% is absorbed into the price, the end user never sees it.
Since the end purchaser never really sees it on the receipt, it becomes an "out of sight, out of mind" issue.
I don't know one state that could function if there was a 25% sales tax added at the end of a transaction, the people would vote with their feet and bail on the state.

Bingo! Give that man a cookie!