Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Automated Payment Transaction Tax / Eliminate the IRS
http://www.apttax.com/index.htm ^ | Edgar L. Feige

Posted on 08/14/2004 3:06:58 PM PDT by Licensed-To-Carry

Is it possible to have a system of taxation which is simple, efficient, progressive, and revenue neutral replacing all those taxes listed above? As it turns out, Yes.

By capitalizing on financial data processing technology, it is possible to create a tax code for the 21st century-- one that is astonishingly easy for all citizens to understand, that is easy to administer and to comply with because it eliminates the need to file tax or information returns. The system, developed by University of Wisconsin Professor of Economics Edgar L. Feige, is known as the APT or Automated Payments/Transaction Tax.

You can find Professor Feige's original papers detailing the Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax by clicking the links to the left. The papers describe a simple plan to replace our current complex system of federal and state income, sales, excise and estate taxes. It's not rocket science; it's actually just simple arithmetic.

In order to raise the same amount of revenue as our current tax system, a "revenue neutral" APT tax would impose a single tiny tax rate on each and every transaction in the economy. All deductions and exemptions would be eliminated. By declaring a "zero tolerance" policy for any exemption, we wipe out every special interest loophole that now riddles our overly complex tax code. Since the volume of all transactions is estimated to be 100 times larger than the current tax base, the flat tax rate needed to raise the same amount of revenues is just a hundredth of the current average tax rate of roughly 30%. So if transactions stayed at their current level, the APT tax rate would be three tenths of one percent (0.3%) on each transaction. Even if total transactions fell by 50%, the revenue neutral APT tax rate would only be six tenths of one percent (0.6%) split equally between the buyer and seller in each transaction so each would pay 0.3%. Feige details how the replacement of our current tax system with an APT tax could save the government and its citizens as much as $500 billion annually by eliminating the compliance, collection, enforcement and inefficiency costs of our current tax system. Additional savings would accrue society in general, which are impossible to compute. Just think of all those beautiful trees that will be left standing when we stop printing the 17,000 page Tax Code and the millions (maybe billions) of copies of forms with instructions still being used at both federal and state levels.

How would it work? Consider a family with an annual income of $60,000, paying $20,000 in interest and mortgage payments on their house and spending $40,000 on all other items. The family has total transactions of $120,000. Today that family would owe roughly $20,000 in total taxes. Under the APT tax, with a rate of 0.6% they would pay $180 (.3% x $60000) on their income receipts and $180 on their expenditures for a total tax of $360. Their employer would pay $180 tax on the income payment, the mortgage company would pay $60 on its receipts and the merchants receiving the family's $40,000 of other expenses would pay another $120 in taxes. In total, the government would receive $780. And all the taxes would be automatically assessed and paid without filing tax returns.

How then does the government collect enough taxes to pay its bills? Most of the revenues would be collected from the massive volume of stock and bond trades and foreign exchange transactions none of which are now taxed. One might be concerned that imposing taxes on these types of transactions would stifle economic activity in these critical areas, however, the tax is so small it would be dwarfed by the simple fluctuations in price that typically occur during the trading process. Although "day trading" and short term foreign exchange transactions will certainly decline, the reduction in these "hot money" transactions are only likely to reduce speculative market activity, thereby reducing the volatility of prices in these markets.

Although every voluntary transaction is assessed the same low tax rate, the APT tax achieves equity and fairness because the wealthiest portion of the population executes a disproportionate share of financial transactions, whereas the poorest members of society engage in relatively few financial transactions since they have so much less wealth to manage. So progressivity is achieved through the skewness of the tax base rather than through a progressive tax rate structure.

Practically speaking, how will the APT Tax work? Every bank, brokerage, or other financial account established by a person, corporation or other taxable organization will pay 0.3% on ALL funds moving IN OR OUT of that account. The tax would be automatically transferred to a federal government tax collection account in the same institution. This will be true for stock, bond, options, and futures traders and investors; foreign citizens, companies and governments exchanging their currency for US dollars; a couple buying a new car (no more 6% sales tax, instead 0.3% APT tax); and, a teenager buying movie tickets with a credit card. The movement of funds is taxed and collected immediately without recording who or what was the source of funds or the recipient. This automated system would totally eliminate the need for filing tax returns and information returns, freeing individuals and businesses of enormous costs of tax compliance and greatly reducing the government's costs of collection and enforcement.

How to move forward?

Can we as a people take such dramatic economic action? We did take radical political action for the common good in 1776 and 1787. Now its time to finish the job on the economic side. So spread the word! Maybe some national figure will realize the power lodged in an idea with virtually universal benefit and agreement. What can you do? First, familiarize yourself with the details of the plan and then tell your friends and bring it to the attention of your elected representatives. We also welcome your comments and suggestions, which we will try to post under appropriate headings in our tax blog on this website. We want to thank Professor Edgar Feige of Wisconsin for his revolutionary concept and research. This is a totally non-partisan, informational website. Hopefully our fellow citizens will recognize the substantial advantages described and demand fair and thorough further research be performed to determine how the idea could be improved and implemented? For comments and questions please email us at: director@apttax.com or participate in our online community and discussion forum by clicking here.

William J Hermann, Jr. M.D. Director


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: apt; ifitmovestaxit; incometax; irs; taxes; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last
To: sixmil
Thank you for your kind words. It is good to see you, too.

So far, we know that income tax is bad, not many people are serious about replacing it with a sales tax,

I cannot put my finger on this one: I cannot comprehend what really opposition really is. One would think that the sales tax is both fair (taxes consumption rather than capital or its creation) and inexpensive in terms of collection. I have not really studies the issue, but with IRS being what it is and with the tax code exploding by the day, the support for the status quo is really puzzling (to me).

61 posted on 08/15/2004 12:34:27 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: SC Swamp Fox

Where is it written in stone that the Gubmint gets a piece of everything you do? What entitles the gubmint to this largesse?


62 posted on 08/15/2004 12:37:33 PM PDT by szweig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: watchin
A transaction tax is not the same as the sales tax (the latter essentially taxes only what you consume). A movement of $10,000 from one IRA account into another is not a sale and does not result in consumption. It would entail, however, a tax under the proposed system.
63 posted on 08/15/2004 12:40:00 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
Only an academic nut safely protected from the real world could propose such an ignorant scheme.

There is another category: really bad academics, whether isolated or not.

Your tax dollars at work!

Fortunately, this is not the case: the author is professor emeritus.

64 posted on 08/15/2004 12:45:49 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: technomage
judging by the reactions on this board whenever ANY type of solution is introduced.

You probably have more experience in this area, but I have not seen such reactions to the sales tax, or even a flat income tax on FR.

But this particular proposal is truly stupid and, I am afraid, there is simply no other way to say that.

65 posted on 08/15/2004 12:50:30 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark

The last paragraph just doesn't make sense.


66 posted on 08/15/2004 1:00:45 PM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
The last paragraph just doesn't make sense.

That is possible. In this case the onus is on you to identify the deficiency.

Another possibility is, of course, that it does not make sense to you, which opens the question of whether you have any sense.

In the last paragraph of the aforementioned post I stated that the proposed tax contradicts the very basics of economics. If this is not clear, let me know, and I'll try to help.

67 posted on 08/15/2004 1:16:11 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: watchin

my understanding of this kind of tax is that it would affect large financial institutions mostly. Currencies, Stocks, Bonds, Govt. Securities and Commodities are the classes of items that are traded most (in dollar terms). All of these classes of items benifit from being in highly liquid markets. This is where the burden of this tax would fall. Some times these trades make a very small percentage profit on a huge transaction. These trades are ways of balancing supply and demand on a global scale. Another problem is that these trading firms would just move offshore - a US Firm could have its overseas operation conduct all of these trades and repatratiate profits.
there are too many holes in this kind of Tax, the more I write about it the more I see them.


68 posted on 08/15/2004 1:54:05 PM PDT by Murtyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: szweig
What entitles the gubmint to this largesse?

I don't think anyone has posted an opinion in favor of a large, intrusive gov't.

Whether we think they are entitled to it or not...the government is bloated and we currently have a "progressive" income tax system that acts to punish investment and achievement.

You don't think we should be discussing alternatives to our current method of financing our federal gov't?

69 posted on 08/15/2004 3:25:38 PM PDT by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

Arghhh... at least tax reform is in the headlines...


70 posted on 08/15/2004 4:18:26 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Licensed-To-Carry; newgeezer; sharktrager; TopQuark; watchin; You Dirty Rats; SedVictaCatoni; ...
1] newgeezer - implied that APT would be a hidden tax. Not true. In fact, Dr. Feige describes how we would all have taxpayer accounts (TPAs) that would keep track of our gross tax payouts.

4] sharktrager - opposes the APT tax because he to assumes it "would be virtually invisible" and would make us all complacent and ignorant of how much we are really paying.

Nothing could make us as complacent as we are now by withholding income against our will. With an APT, we decide whether to pay taxes or not by choosing whether to spend or save. In addition to TPSs I mentioned above, I would expect everyone to become quit picky about that single little APT tax much the way the economy is to the Federal Reserve interest rate. Voters would be empowered the way it was intended.

10] TopQuark - First, he argues that the number of transactions don't increase with wealth. The amount of tax collected would be the same regardless of how many transactions you make. I don't know about you, but with income taxes gone, I think I'd go buy a few more things.

Second, he asserts that an APT tax would reduce market liquidity, inhibit the free movement of capital and labor and stagnate the economy. But the APT tax would be dwarfed by impact costs and broker fees. If anything it would cut a lot of short term speculative trading and reduce volatility.

Thirdly, he wrongly assumes that the author doesn't take into account the elasticity of the market. Dr. Feige's static model proposes a 0.3% tax rate while his elastic model assumes a drastic 50% drop in transactions which would require a tax rate of just 0.6%.

13] watchin - asks if cash would be an easy form of tax exemption. In the proposal, it is estimated that cash changes hands an average of four times before returning to a bank. With the APT tax, it might increase to about eight times. So banks would simply charge a 4x tax on all cash withrdrawls and deposits to account for those intermediate transactions and discourage the use of cash in general.

17] sharktrager - Also think people would ignore it like a state sales tax. (See 1 & 4 above) He also thinks that we would all end up paying more. (See 10 above)

22] You Dirty Rats - Thinks an APT tax would drive transactions offshore. However, the proposal suggests that property protection laws be restricted from offshore tax shelters and that any currency coming from such foreign institution be treated as counterfeit.

26] SedVictaCatoni - Uses the transaction tax that was implemented in Brazil as an example. But, transaction taxes were never intended to be used in small developing economies. Plus the Brazilian government simply added it on top of all existing taxes as a new source of revenue.

29] arthurus - Thinks Congress would raise the APT tax on impulse and diminish the initial returns of abolishing the income tax system. If the APT tax were ever adopted, we would all be well aware of a phenomena call cascading. Cascading is when a tax is applied to the same thing more than once through the chain of production. This would happen with APT but not enough to be a problem for anyone. However, increasing the initial tax rate even slightly would first nibble on business revenue and then cascade into a noticeable increase in the prices of finished products. The rate increase might increase short term revenue for Congress but only at the expense of long term transactions. Any short term gain in revenue wouldn't make up for the long term loss. Any Congress that adopts the APT would also want to anchor the initial rate with something like a constitutional amendment so that all future congresses would be forced to conserve spending and grow with the economy.

30] sharktrager - Also believes that any Congress who would adopt the APT tax would then raise the rate to the demise of the economy. (See 29) He also makes an attempt to describe cascading but doesn't quite get the math right. Allow me to reenact his example:

Description Amount 0.6% Tax Tax Paid
1 Paycheck +$1,000.00 0.3% -$3.00
2 Deposit - - -
3 ATM(Cash) -$20.00 **1.2% -$0.24
4 Target(Socks) -$15.00 0.3% -$0.05


$1,035.00


0.039%


-$3.29

**(See 13 above)

The last couple of transactions were Target transactions so they don't count. With a 0.6% APT tax, you would only pay half (0.3%) on each transaction. First you get paid $1,000, presumable by check, and that's one transaction not two. You then withdraw $20 from the ATM, buy socks at Target ($15) and your ending balance would be $961.71. You executed $1,035 in taxable transactions and paid $3.29 in total taxes. Your average tax rate would actually be 0.329%- slightly more then 0.3%, not 3.6%! In fact, after spend the rest, your total tax rate would never exceed 0.6% (0.3% coming in then 0.3 again going out). It's that simple.

31] SAJ - Thinks that short term speculative traders are enormously valuable because they increase overall market liquidity. So, everyone would be adversely effected by the APT tax as it would increase trading costs enough to force a considerable fraction of those who practice day trading, arbitrage, conversions and reversals to pick up their marbles and go home.

However, he isn't taking into account the cumulative positive effect that the APT tax would have in reducing overall operating costs for everyone. The income tax burden alone is a greater factor of brokerage commissions and assorted floor and clearing charges than the APT tax would ever be. If they really wanted to preserve liquidity, they could reduce their fees and charges by the traders share of the APT tax and they would still come away with significantly increased overall revenue.

I totally agree with his argument about transfers of funds between accounts owned by the same entity. If I have a checking account, a savings account, a paypal account and a sharebuilder account, the money I move between these accounts don't constitute as transactions and shouldn't be subject to the APT tax. I think Congress would make sure that was part of the deal before passing it.

32] technomage - PING! The idea in general is great but not perfect. But, for every criticism, there is a reasonable solution that makes it better. After all is said and done, more will have been said than done.

33] mhx - Thinks that a flat income tax is the best tax reform. Fortunately, the reason why we don't have a flat income tax is because income isn't flat. At about 10%, we start putting poor families, disabled and retired people out on the streets while collecting little more than half of the current federal budget. Anything more, and we match the federal budget in the middle of a welfare crisis. That's why we have tax brackets instead which leads us back to our current predicament.

34] SAJ - Thinks that transaction-intensive businesses that operate on VERY small margins would suffer job losses, layoffs and offshore transfers as a result of the APT tax. Again, as he did in 31], he neglects to account for the net INCREASE in net margins as a result of income tax relief.

38] SedVictaCatoni - Describes how a Swiss Re transfer of $41 million into a bank account in Dallas for 24 hours would be subject to the APT tax. But it's not clear whether the transfer is between accounts owned by the same entity or constitutes an actual transaction between entities (See 31 above).

39] balrog666 & 40] boris - Both comment that the APT tax would somehow lead to an underground cash and barter economy. However, bartering is way too costly and inconvenient to be worth the aggravation and the proposal suggests a 4x cash withdraw/deposit tax to discourage the use of cash. But, seeing as people are more than willing to pay as much as 24.9% interest on credit card charges, $1.50 for foreign ATM withdraw fees and state sales taxes as high as 9% in Texas, I don't see why anyone would go out of their way just to avoid the APT tax... accept perhaps all the broke and homeless income tax attorneys.

48] ancient_geezer - Seems to like the fair tax. Unfortunately, the fair tax would add an 18% to 23% federal sales tax on top of all state sales taxes which would crush this economy. This tax base is only about 50% larger than the income tax base which is why the rate is about two thirds of the average income tax rate. It would also have to come with exemptions otherwise it would literally put low income families and retirees out on the street. That further restricts this tax base, increasing the rate and allowing for ongoing voter manipulation.

51] SC Swamp Fox - Says he would open a bar and operate entirely on cash. How long do you suppose that would last once all of his upstanding customers and employees get wind of all the cash he's hording in the back office? I'd bet he'd reconsider after less than a week, despite the tax.

54] SAJ - Thinks the APT is just a variant of the Tobin tax. In fact, I believe it is, but if his objections to the Tobin tax are as shortsighted as his objections to the APT tax, perhaps his exodus from the U.S. markets alone would help increase our GDP.
71 posted on 10/01/2004 9:57:52 AM PDT by 1Bit (Please Dream Responsibly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Licensed-To-Carry; Taxman; Principled; Bigun; EternalVigilance; kevkrom; n-tres-ted; Poohbah; ...
Hiding taxes in transactions out of the view of the electorate is like driving a car without brakes or speedometer.

Transaction taxes are a great formula for perpetually growing government. How does an electorate exercise "Eternal Vigilance" with government imposed horse blinders on?

If one must be taxed, one must be aware of how much they are being taxed. The cost of government must be perceived all as well as the largess demanded of government.

 

A Taxreform bump for you all.

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


72 posted on 10/01/2004 10:28:12 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer

A consumption tax, with the tax clearly denoted on the receipt in big numbers, is my preferred solution.


73 posted on 10/01/2004 10:43:52 AM PDT by Poohbah (If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 1Bit

[48] ancient_geezer - Seems to like the fair tax. Unfortunately, the fair tax would add an 18% to 23% federal sales tax on top of all state sales taxes which would crush this economy. This tax base is only about 50% larger than the income tax base which is why the rate is about two thirds of the average income tax rate.

That is what any revenue neutral tax must impose inorder to provide the same revenue to the treasury.

That is true of your with the transaction tax as well as it must extract the same dollar amount from the economy as the NRST would and of necessity msut be passed on to the individual by casading throughout the economy in retail prices to the final consumer of all goods and services.

It would also have to come with exemptions otherwise it would literally put low income families and retirees out on the street. That further restricts this tax base, increasing the rate and allowing for ongoing voter manipulation.

Not true at all, as all retail tax on sales upto the povertyline of expenditure are covered by a monthly demogrant to all households removing any need to exempt anything.

All legal residents will receive a demogrant called the Family Consumption Allowence(FCA) equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services. The FCA will be paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the monthly FCA will be determined by the government's Poverty Level for a particular family size, multiplied by the tax rate paid to all households regardless of income or actual expenditure.

Every year, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] determine the "poverty level" for each family size.

The 2001 "FairTax" Family Consumption Allowance Figures

Family Size

HHS Poverty Level

Annual FCA

Monthly FCA

One

$8,590

$1,976

$165

Two

$17,180

$3,951

$329

Three

$20,200

$4,646

$387

Four

$23,220

$5,341

$445

Five

$26,240

$6,035

$503

Six

$29,260

$6,730

$561

Seven

$32,280

$7,424

$619

Eight

$35,300

$8,119

$677

1) Federal Register: February 16, 2001, Pages 10695-10697).

[ The monthly FCA for each adult is .23 * (HSS poverty level for a single person)/12 to assure no marriage penalty due to the manner in which the poverty level is dependant on family size. The monthly FCA for each child is .23 * (the incremental increase of HSS poverty level for a family with one child over no child) ] A. Geezer

A family of four, for example, could spend $23,220 per year free of tax because they will have received over the course of the year rebates totaling $5,341. $5,341 is the amount of sales tax paid on $23,220 in expenditures. A family spending double the "poverty level" or $46,440 per year will effectively pay tax on only half of their spending and, therefore, have an effective tax rate of 11 ½ percent or half the FairTax rate.

The beauty of the FairTax is that you can control how much you pay in taxes. If you happen to save, invest or spend a portion on used [previously taxed] items, you can get your effective tax rate below 9%.

To illustrate examine the tax burden that a family of four will have at various annual expenditure levels as compared against the income/payroll tax that same family pays today:


74 posted on 10/01/2004 10:54:51 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Licensed-To-Carry

An excellent approach.

I could suppoout this initiative.

Likewise I support the NRST.

The thing I like most about this approach is that it removes the need for some "rebate" to consumers to make up for the taxing of necessities.

Anything that eliminates the income tax and associated "withholding" taxes is a great idea.


75 posted on 10/01/2004 11:00:03 AM PDT by WhiteGuy (Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf
3 years ago, I bought a 1996 Geo Prizm for my daughter's use. It had 141,000 miles on it and now has 210,000. 1 set spark plugs, 1 set wires, 2 sets of tires, 3 sets brakes (finally wised up and bought new pads from Toyota), 1 power steering hose and 20 oil/filter changes.

Depreciation=$1500.00, maintenance total=$600.00.

76 posted on 10/01/2004 11:06:23 AM PDT by Old Professer (The Truth always gets lost in the Noise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
If one must be taxed, one must be aware of how much they are being taxed. The cost of government must be perceived all as well as the largess demanded of government.

A M E N ! ! !

77 posted on 10/01/2004 11:42:10 AM PDT by Bigun (IRSsucks@getridof it.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: 1Bit
newgeezer - implied that APT would be a hidden tax. Not true.

But, it HAS to be true. Just the simple fact that it's such a "miniscule" tax implies it HAS to be a largely-hidden tax. The things we see on store shelves will have some large, HIDDEN amount of tax already built-in to their retail prices.

It sure looks to be little more than a twist on Europe's hidden Value Added Tax (VAT).

As someone else already said, I would much prefer a consumption tax, with the number plainly visible on the store receipt, rather than buried in a few thousand "tiny" painless transactions before it finally gets to the consumer.

Paying taxes should be painful. When they're hidden and painless, it's too easy for Congress to raise them without hearing any backlash.

78 posted on 10/01/2004 12:48:03 PM PDT by newgeezer (...until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

I see. You assume that all costs of production are factored into the prices of products and, since any taxes on production are costs, then all taxes on production are eventually passed on to consumers through increased prices. So we might as well just tax the consumer instead. Right?

Likewise, I can assume that all costs on wages are factored into consumer spending and, since any taxes on wages are costs, then all taxes on wages are eventually passed on to production through reduced consumer spending. So we might as well just tax the chain of production.

The point is that we are both right. Taxes are a cost against both production and consumption, no matter where you apply it, so both producers and consumers should bare a fair share of the tax. That's what the APT tax does.

Let's say we have a national federal sales tax. If Congress raised the tax rate and caused us all a lot of pain, what recorse would we have? Would we just not buy anything and let the whole economy collaps or should we get pissed and just go shoplifting? Voting wouldn't matter at that point.


79 posted on 10/01/2004 4:44:46 PM PDT by 1Bit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: 1Bit

so both producers and consumers should bare a fair share of the tax. That's what the APT tax does.

Hmmm, why should a producer, who contributes to the nation through his investment in wealth and energy towards the benefit of the nation be taxed?

Seems to me it makes more sense to portion taxes on the basis of benefit derived from the economy as measured by consumption rather taxing on the basis of one's investments into the nation's economy as measured by labor or investment and savings dollars.

Remember, that which is taxed tends to be inhibited. Taxing cashflow as the transaction tax would, inhibits the most fundamental basis of modern economies. That makes no sense economically nor, for that matter, morally.

80 posted on 10/01/2004 5:12:00 PM PDT by ancient_geezer (Equality, the French disease: Everyone is equal beneath the guillotine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson