tuesday newsday - vat

From Tuesday Newsday:

Policy makers are debating on whether to add a value added tax to our daily purchases, on which we already pay sales tax. This is how they plan to pay for health care reform. So, is this a fair tax or are we unduly taxing the poor with this? Does the end justify the means?

No, and yes, in that order. A value-added tax that is indiscriminate would fall so much more heavily on the people it is trying to help so as to be counterproductive. If people who are already struggling to make ends meet are taxed on food and clothing, making them more expensive, then they may end up malnourished and poorly clothed. Then, those people are going to need more of the health care that this tax is supposed to pay for.

I do think that a national sin tax might be in order. We already have taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. Those could go up. Then if we tax sodas, candy and other non-nutritional edibles, then we could be using the money to help pay for the ills that could come from those as well as help pay for health care of those who will eat healthier because things that are bad for them cost more.

When I lived in Texas, most foods and clothing were nontaxable. Any one piece of clothing under $50 was not taxable. Any one piece of clothing over $50 was taxable. I thought that made a lot of sense. I pay more than $50 for a dress or a coat once every two or three years. Most of my clothing purchases are much less than that.

So, I think that a VAT is a viable option, but not if it is used to paint the whole house the same color. Instead, VATS should be painted into the corners and walls where it would have the least effect on the poor and still raise enough money to pay for health care.