[APT Project Director]

John, your post about the 1% deducts is pretty close but 1% is too much -- it only needs to be 0.25% per side of every transaction. The paycheck example you mentioned would be $2.50 per $1000 for your employer when his/your paycheck clears his account and $2.50 per $1000 off your account when you deposit the check. Thank you for appreciating this great idea. As you read the rest of these posts describing horrendous results ask yourself - would an internationally known Professor of Economics not have considered these thing before putting his name on the line? and finally, does this or that argument mean that we should all continue to pay 70 TIMES more tax than we have to?

[Doctor Stochastic]

How do you measure internal transactions vs external ones? If a company produces bolts internally instead of buying them, are the taxes different? Are taxes added to quality control transactions? Is sweat equity taxed? The whole idea seems like a method to sneak in a VAT along with an income tax. The paperwork would be overwhelming, at least compared to current methods.

[ancient_geezer]

does this or that argument mean that we should all continue to pay 70 TIMES more tax than we have to?

How do we pay 70 times less tax under APT?

Incidence of tax burden is not on who submits the check by law, it is a consequence of demand elasticities in the economy passing down to the various factors of consumer, laborer or capital investor/owner. We are all individuals competing and transacting in all markets directly and in our proxies of business.

The government's bill is paid by us all, how can the government survive on 70 times less revenues for the individuals making up the populace of the nation on which the incidence of all taxes must fall?

[EternalVigilance]

...would an internationally known Professor of Economics not have considered these thing before putting his name on the line?

Such considerations have never stopped them in the past.

Sorry, I don't want the government tracking all transactions, especially in ways the common citizen cannot understand.

This is a poisonous recipe for neverending political and financial hanky-panky of the worst sort.

One tax; visible; at the retail level.

I assure you this proposal is DOA politically.

[balrog666]

would an internationally known Professor of Economics not have considered these thing before putting his name on the line?

Yes. Obviously. Indubitably. Buy a clue, will ya?

and finally, does this or that argument mean that we should all continue to pay 70 TIMES more tax than we have to?

You can't seriously believe this horsesh!t, can you?

If the same amount of money (that's what "revenue neutral" means) will be collected, and our taxes "fall" under this proposal, just who do you think will be paying the difference?

[aShepard]

...."ask yourself - would an internationally known Professor of Economics not have considered these thing before putting his name on the line?"....

So what's so special about an internationally known economist??

The name Jack Krugman comes to mind, poisioning the minds of his Princeton students, and his RAT readers.

[jrfaug06]

Hi,

I was just using 1% as an example. But I think using the banks is a novel idea when you consider they already have the infrastructure in place to adminster it.

John

[looscnnn]

I can appreciate your attempt to find a replacement for the current system, rather than "just fix it". However, I find it a little disturbing that you taught that your plan will "pay 70 times more tax than we have now". I find it disturbing because it will not force the government to cut its spending or the its size. If the government has 70 time more money to spend it will damn well spend it at least 3 times over in just one year. With the tax being hidden, people will be oblivious to the tax being raised so the can cover their overspending, which would just cause them to raise their budgets more and so on and so on....All plans look great on paper and work in theory, until you add reality that the greedy will take everything they can and then some and keep coming back for more. They will what ever they have to to keep their pockets stuffed.

How about taxing the "Federal Reserve"/Central Bank for the right to print our money and to control our economy instead of the citizens, after all they make lots of money and pay no taxes.

[Ditto]

"... does this or that argument mean that we should all continue to pay 70 TIMES more tax than we have to?"

Allow me to ask you this.

Assuming that all money (wealth) belongs to someone and not to factitious entities such as corporations or "markets", if we take the entire revenue stream of the Federal Government ($2 trillion a year?) and divide it by the population, we come up with some per capita tax. Now we can "proportion" the tax rate based on income or some other measure, but in the end, we are still taking 2 trillion dollars from people.

How is it that you can say that the middle income person's tax rate will fall to $550 a year or whatever your figure is? Where is the other $20,000(?) of that proportional share coming from? Aren't we just hiding the tax via remote transaction costs from the taxpayer and collectively, aren't individuals paying the same amount as now?

Secondly, do you think it wise policy that the general population does not know and can not determin how much government takes away from them?