Posted on 08/14/2004 3:06:58 PM PDT by Licensed-To-Carry
Say what? Interesting math. Oh. You tax everything twice, eh...and what about savings? Pension plans? Medical insurance? Employer-matched 'voluntary investment' plans?
--Boris
it's so small a rate who cares.....let them
sounds like the dreaded VAT.
tax at every transaction that occurs related to production of goods and services.
"I think there was something about when cash is deposited into or withdrawn from any financial institution you would pay the .006% tax. But I guess as long as you use cash between two people there is no tax, at least no way to collect it."
That's one problem. Suppose you cash a check for cash (0.006% tax) and then you spend the cash for a burger (another 0.006% tax) but if you write a check for the burger, then you only pay the tax once.
A VAT on steriods.
Remove people's perception of the cost of government and there are no limits to growth of government.
If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.
John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:
H.R.25, S.1493
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
Does this plan include every single transaction - even those involving a person transfering their own funds from one account to another? The way I read this article, it sounds like it is.
For example - if a person transfers money from their savings account to a checking account in the same bank in order to write a check. If so, that would mean that the person's funds would be taxed once when the funds were deposited into the savings account, once when they were removed from the savings account, once when they were deposited into the checking account, and then once when the check is cashed.
This doesn't seem quite right to me...but that's just my 2 cents.
That was my first thought. I would buy a bar and not accept checks or credit cards....cash only.
The money would never see a bank.
I'll take that back...I would let trusted customers run a tab and then pay that tab with goods or services (a barter system). Tires, food, gold, ammo....sex.....all could be negotiated, acceptable forms of payment that are not subject to the transaction tax.
So far, we know that income tax is bad, not many people are serious about replacing it with a sales tax, and now this transaction tax seems likely to flop as well. So, why not admit we were too stupid to stick with a system that worked, swallow our pride and go back to tariffs and other indirect taxes?
This scheme is just a variant on what used to be called the ''Tobin tax'', dreamt up by another ivory-tower academic. I believe he was awarded the Nobel prize, not sure -- if so, there is much to commend the policy of straight-out ignoring any ''economist'' who wins that prize.
A couple of fellow traders and I kicked this idea around about 5 years ago. The only rational action we could figure out, in the event of the institution of such a tax, was to leave the country. Between the number of newly-minted cash/barter transactors, as per this thread, and those who will vacate, I wonder how far off the mark this per-fesser will be on his revenue estimates.
This topic illustrates perfectly the difference between the staticists and the dynamists; how in the world the staticists still believe that people will NOT change their behaviour in response to changes in the tax regime is utterly beyond me.
I did not say "value of a transaction:" I spoke of transaction costs.
When you buy stocks, brokerage fees (and slippage if you are a trader) is a transaction cost. A $30-book you buy may costs you $35, if shipping --- a transaction cost --- is included.
I heard of a "1% transaction tax" some years ago; developed by a professor in New York. Virtually the same thing. EVERY transaction is taxed at 1%. No income tax, medicare tax, no social security tax, no gasoline taxes, no taxes on tobacco or alcohol or any sales taxes......nada, zip, zilch. Just every transaction taxed at 1% for the government.
The amount of revenue generated is STAGGERING.
That point is still valid, however: the consumption levels of the one with $50B is approximately the same as of a person who has only 1B. Since consumption is not proportional to wealth, the use of it as equity measure is problematic.
I sent this to everyone I have in government.....great idea
You shouldn't type while looking over your shoulder. Nor do I need admonitions. If you feel under-appreciated and have a need to command someone, get yourself a dog.
If you have something to say on the SUBJECT at hand, please do so.
A better idea would be a true flat income tax with no deductions. Simple, easy to enforce, and drastically fairer than the tiered "soak the rich" scheme we have now.
Even better yet would be a simple National Retail Sales Tax. By default, it gives control of taxes to the individual, the collection infrastructure is in place nearly everywhere, and foreign-made goods are taxed at the same level as American-made goods, meaning that instead of unfairly taxing American labor as an income tax does, it spreads the load to all the world's labor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.