How about taxing financial transactions, instead of taxing income, products, inheritances, capital gains or whatever else is being taxed noways? Let's face it, income tax from companies and individuals is by far the biggest revenue earner for government. Many, including myself, have argued that a shift towards taxing consumption would be fairer.
But how about taxing financial transactions instead? How about getting banks to tax all financial transactions, including withdrawals and deposits. Yes, that means you pay tax on deposits into your bank account and again if you later withdraw the money or transfer it. You pay even more if the money is deposited into one account and if you then transfer it to another account that pays higher interest. Of course, you can avoid that by keeping your money into one account. Similarly, more tax is paid if you withdraw money in order to pay the retailer cash, since the retailer will get taxed when depositing the money. But again, you can avoid that by paying the retailer by electronic transfer.
Anyway, taxing all financial trasnactions will allow tax rates to come down and the system would still remain revenue neutral. Furthermore, income taxes at a flat rate of 10% to 15% turn out to produce as much revenue as progressive rates, if all tax deductions are abolished. So, since a financial transaction tax would effectively tax you once when your employer pays your salary into your bank account and once more when you pay the retailer, we could end up with an even lower transaction tax.
How low? A low rate would convince people not to use black money. People will avoid making cash withdrawals anyway, as that would attract tax. So, a transaction tax will avoid money laundering and associated crime. Since more money would be captured in the taxation net, the final rate could be even lower still. I'd say 5% would be enough to stay revenue neutral.
Would that be fair? Even if someone was taxed "unfairly" or if someone managed to avoid getting taxed, the tax rate would be low enough to minimize the damage. Generally, such a low rate of 5% would attract foreign investments and would stimulate the economy, resulting in numerous job opportunities and greater prosperity for all.
Do I recommend it? Actually, I prefer to talk in terms of achieving specific goals. Tax should not be raised for the sake of it. A FeeBate policy works best when government action is appropriate, market mechanisms can sort things out further.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 101
There are too many hidden fees out there right now - let's start cleaning up the industry so that people will have full transparency in dealing with financial institutions.
I think you have a good idea here, but I would not suggest substituting it for other revenue sources. Just adding it to the mix.
If you started taxing financial transactions, how long do you think investors would tolerate that? Flight of money would increase exponentially, and revenue for the government would plummet.
Very true. And what you had was the Wild West. Historical fiction should fill you in on what the world was like, everywhere, before the modern state that does take on these functions.
Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the Old West because guns were so plentiful.
There was violence along the frontiers, but most of it was related to clashes with Indians, bandits or foreign nations. There was not a great deal of "ordinary" crime. From 1870 to 1885, the era of the Wild West when "everybody wore a gun," arrest rates per 100 residents were much lower in the West than in eastern cities.53 Moreover, "the Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful, and safer place than American society istoday."54 Contrary to the impression left by movies and Western novels, crime and homicides were rare. For example:55
• In 1880, wide-open towns like Virginia City, Nev., Leadville, Colo., and Dallas had no homicides.
I'm sure you can find many other towns that had no homicides in 1880, and many others that did. It's a matter of statistics, and of small numbers--most Western towns were pretty small then. The town I'm living in, with about 70,000 people, has 0 homicides most years. Last year (2007) it had 1.
There is no doubt that some of the worst mass murders in history have been state- sponsored, and others were committed by groups that were fighting to achieve statehood for themselves. However, it is also clear that so far the only examples of reasonably safe, humane, and livable societies have been liberal democracies with "checks and balances", but a properly functioning state, and yes, I'm afraid, a tax system. (Like the US, I should point out, in case the term "liberal democracy" is not clear to everyone.) There have certainly been experiments with other models in the 20th century--they didn't turn out too well.
I think that a lot of people would get their paycheck, cash it and just pocket the money. Why deposit it if there is going to be a tax?
Since I believe the graduated income tax is still the fairest tax of all, this plan looks pretty dubious to me!
People have done without all kinds of things: indoor plumbing, air conditioning, instantaneous communication, recordable music. That doesn't mean I want to go back. Many of those things the government stepped in to address were life and death or involved significant injustices.
For me, the question isn't whether we should pay for government - it's how we can get the government we're paying for to work for the benefits of us all, instead of those that add a tip to the campaign cookie jar. I'm sure there are many ways we could be taxed that might be more fair. It isn't gonna do us any good unless the money is spent wisely.
Firstly, if people take their money out of the banking system, they will pay tax on withdrawals as described in the article. Technically, they're not avoiding tax. Secondly, why would people hide large amount of cash under their beds, if they aren't going to get hit by huge taxes, as in a progressive or graduated system? If they only have to pay 5% tax or less, while receiving interest, most will put their money on a bank account. It is more likely that most of the black money will be put on bank account and thus attract tax, which means that the tax can be lowered even further while the system remains revenue-neutral. Furthermore, people will spend less money and time on seeking ways to avoid taxes. The best brains of our country are occupied designing ways to avoid taxes, while an army of bureaucrats seeks to unravel the mazes they have woven. What a waste!
Aniko: "And taxing consumption as opposed to income always affects the poor disproportionately, because they have to spend all their income just to survive, so essentially the whole of their income is taxed, while higher income earners can save."
Overall, a shift from taxing income to taxing consumption can stimulate economic growth, as it is more rewarding for people and companies to do more and be more successful, without having to do all kinds of tricks to avoid taxes. But it all depends how the shift towards consumption is implemented and how many tax deductions and tax-free privileges are removed. The shift could be accompanied by vouchers to give the poor more purchasing power. Note however, that the article describes something else again, i.e. a transaction tax.
Let polluters continue to inflict harm on their victims? That's effectively what is happening now in regard to global warming, isn't it? But the realities of global warming force us to take swift action to change this situation. The most effective way to deal with this is by means of a FeeBate policy, such as by imposing a fee on fossil fuel and using the proceeds to support better alternatives, such as wind and solar power.
There are many reasons, James. A bank transaction gives proof of payment and gives one an accountancy overview. Without incomes taxes, people don't have to fear it will be used against them. There's a lot less reason to avoid taxes if one only has to pay 5% tax or less on deposits. Furthermore, cash doesn't give receiving and it's unsafe to carry large amounts of cash or hide it in your house. It's likely that most people will deposit their cash into a bank account, in fact, it's less likely that anyone will make cash withdrawals in the first place, as that will attract tax. But even if they don't, they money will eventually appear in a bank account somewhere and there's no big harm done, far less than if people on high incomes hide the top parts of their incomes.
James: "..the graduated income tax is still the fairest tax of all.."
Income taxes punish people who work hard and companies who are successful. That doesn't stimulate economic growth and it gives less opportunities for the unemployed to find jobs. It is often hard for people without formal employment to escape the black market with all the associated crime, fraud, scams and abuse.
I agree, Stephanie, the realities of global warming force us to take swift action. The most effective way to deal with this is by means of a FeeBate policy, such as by imposing a fee on fossil fuel while insisting that the proceeds be used to support better alternatives, such as wind and solar power.
It is government that purchases horrifically poisonous products from such companies as Monsanto and then forcibly sprays this stuff on habitats far away from the Potomac.
If we could stop government-funded poisonings, it would mean major health improvements for presently marginalized populations, lower tax bills for workers, and a better environment for all manner of creatures who cannot now defend themselves against endocrine disruptors.
Giving more money to governments is inappropriate until we do harm-reduction audits on present government behaviors and enforce reparations for the harm.
It is unconscionable to force taxpayers to pay for harm.
It is easier to sue a small business for alleged harm they did not do than to sue the government and the huge companies protected by governments for harm they did do.
What's more, most national banks participated in the sub-prime fiasco. They loaned money to people they knew could not afford the loans, and they wrote horrific prepayment penalties into the contracts.
We are going to trust these guys as the fingerpeople for big government? Why?
Sam, I don't give low ratings, so I didn't rate this one.
People who want to use a road badly enough will pay to maintain it. Radio-wave congestion pricing makes sense to me, where the actual users pay because they use the roads.
Bike-riders, by choice or by necessity, should not have to pay to maintain roads for cars.
People who live close enough to be involved in stewardship of things and who use the things are the ones who should maintain what they use.
Removing subsidies for the oil industry makes sense. Subsidies for a legislator's godfather's business of any kind seems seldom to end up being efficient.
Subsidies encourage inefficiency, graft, and corruption, no matter how big the initial sales copy that someone is going to take from the rich to give to the poor.
The time lag before it turns into taking from the poor to give to the rich seems to get shorter and shorter.
Governments govern men and women through the use of coercion. The fear that this generates causes poor decisions up and down the line. We need to reduce coercion, not give it more money.
The local big check printing facility in my state is fazing out checks, and building other parts of the business.
All meth drug dealing, and black market deals are done in cash, usually small bills. Having cash in this society can now make a person a suspect. Just ask someone who bought an airline ticket in cash.
All of which makes this proposal workable, but still an incredibly bad idea for transactions of less than, say, $10,000.
First time home owners, and small business startups would not like this.
I don't know that I support a universal sales tax, but, at least there you're taxing consumption (which we already do too much of). This, the logic is just not working for me.
In case you hadn't noticed, the black market has been pretty non-existent in this country since WW II. I don't care if the tax is only 1%, those with big money will spend a lot devising ways to avoid the 1%. However, to be realistic, a flat tax would have go be around 25% or higher in order to provide the funding the government requires.
Now, are you just proposing a tax on monetary transfers or would all transactions be the same? If a company bought another, and part of the payment was a subsidiary of a company, would there be a transaction tax? You're surely not limiting this to money involved in banks only.
And being taxed at 5% when you deposit and 5% when you take it out is pretty high taxation I would think. It's also double taxation. I know well the reasons for having a checking account and keeping your money there but if it's going to cost me $400 a month, as your plan would stipulate, I'll do without it! Wouldn't you?
In fact, I'm fairly sure that this plan could really devastate the banking industry. However, I'm glad you thought of it and brought it up for discussion!
Government has typically been without any governing or supervision. What was intended by our founding fathers was and is the people themselves overseeing and governing the government.
We, as voters, can make radical changes in our government if we know what we want, agree on what that is, and carry it out to the extent of joining like minded persons at the ballot box. That we have chosen not to do this is not the fault of the system or the founding fathers!
I'm sure you study the issues and cast an informed vote for the candidate who most closely shares you ideas, but many people vote only for the R or the D and really don't get informed.
I would disagree with you that there was much government in medieval times, just the king and those he needed to enforce his will. Very efficient government in those days!
All in all, no government would result in mob rule and barbarian cruelty.
As for the argument that government itself would need to be governed, that's what democracy and checks and balances are about. (See James's comment.) That is also why the USSR is not a relevant example--even though, since you don't seem to be aware, hard-line dictatorships, communist or otherwise, are very safe places as far as street crime is concerned, though the threat from government violence and the lack of freedom certainly certainly override any positives there. (The USSR no longer exists, and Russia today is a very different place.)
Your argument about slavery is way out there. It's an attempt at "poisoning the well", trying to make it look like people who disagree with you would support slavery. It's also an incomprehensible non sequitur for anyone who considers black people as parts of the whole that requires protection, rather than an outgroup that the "rest of us" need to be protected from. Surely you can see that.
Deeply corrupted governments can't stay in power indefinitely, even in ancient times, with the divine right of kings.
After using such horrific tactics as an "army of the impaled" where, according to contemporary accounts, some 20000 Turkish prisoners were impaled and left to greet the much larger Turkish army, Vlaad managed to turn the Turks back against the odds. Still, he was harsh and vicious, capricious and unrelenting. Many of his own people were put to death for specious reasons (there is considerable evidence that he enjoyed watching people put to death) and, when the Turks retreated, he took to raiding German villages. It is the propaganda and stories circulated by the Germans to discredit this "hero" of the Catholic church with the Pope that have carried forward in time and influenced people like Bram Stoker.
He was plenty nasty without the propaganda, in my opinion, but he was real too. There are still statues to him in his homeland, though he ruled for a total of 13 years (broken up into two reigns) as the effective protector against the Turks.
Check him out on Wikipedia. He existed, really.
However, it's just a sidelight. My point was really to reinforce what you were saying. Corrupt and too dangerous rules don't go on indefinitely. They collapse or eventually are overthrown. And being a vicious tyrant does not mean that you are inherently an enemy of law and order. Vlaad just seemed like an excellent example of both premises.
government can only destroy and misallocate wealth thru the use of force. it cannot create wealth. only free, voluntary transactions by people can create wealth.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html
Joseph, I could quote Churchill ("Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"), but I'll repeat what I said about a functioning state before: if you think democracy has "failed", go check out a country that doesn't have it.
The problem is, however, that transactions between two can harm a third, e.g. when polluting practices inflict harm onto victims. This justifies a (small) tax on transactions, while the most effective way to deal with global warming is by means of a FeeBate policy, such as by imposing a fee on fossil fuel and using the proceeds to support better alternatives, such as wind and solar power.
The feudal system was a confederacy of obligation. The king was nominal owner of everything and people at lower levels paid the crown. At the lowest level serfs received food and housing, sometimes, in exchange for giving the liege lord everything else. It was that way all the way up the ladder. In the ideal the people above had obligations to the people below. It didn't always work that way in practice.
Medieval Europe was pretty darned lawless. Mostly the power lay with the nobles who could maintain the strongest armies and had the most money. The big names in the nobility didn't work together unless they had to.
Yes, and.... ..?
BTW, financial transaction taxes sound a little strange. It would provide a large source of income for tax accountants and create an incredible amount of record keeping.
A financial transaction tax could replace all income taxes, so there won't be any need for accountant to prepare tax forms or find ways for people to avoid income tax. As long as transactions take place from one bank account to another, the bank accounts would automatically constitute the record keeping, i.e. there would be no need to keep records for tax purposes.
What do you suggest instead, Carl? How do you suggest that we deal with something like global warming? Pray??
I know the Socialist Democrat plan is for a massive carbon tax on every human activity. I have no desire to be a slave of the state. The only taxes I can support are on property, luxury taxes and user fees. Prayer isn't the worst idea you have suggested here. According to Dr. David Hager, a Bush appointee to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration overseeing reproductive health medicines, prayer and scripture can help heal ailments such as premenstrual syndrome, postpartum depression and eating disorders. Screw the Midol, just gimme Jesus! That's your government money at work!
A carbon tax alone isn't going to do much. If proceeds are subsequently used to help the poor pay the rising bills for gasoline and other fuel, then the poor will continue to pollute, as they get subsidized to do so, while the rich will continue to pollute as they can afford to do so. It is likely to be counterproductive.
Carl: "..Prayer isn't the worst idea .."
Well, prayer won't get us far either with things such as global warming. The most effective policy is a FeeBate policy, where fees are imposed on fossil fuel and gasoline cars, while the proceeds go to local support of better alternatives, such as electric cars, wind power and solar power.
I read the article you gave the link for. My first question is "who is Hans-Hermann Hoppe and why are you quoting him? He obviously doesn't believe in freedom and democracy. Regardless what you think of it, I am grateful that I was born in a time where aI could live under a republic/democracy form of government!
I would not have liked being a serf in feudal England, would you? I'm sure it is a thrill a minute when the lord of the castle gets to have first sex with your new bride! And they had to have some taxes somewhere to support their debtors prison.
If you are wanting efficient government then by all means, go for a dictatorship. That is the most efficient there is, but taxes are a part of any government. We could cut a bunch of taxes if we gave up our military and our defense. Can't say as I'd favor that!
Bottom line is that what we have in this country, that is a capitalistic system with a fair amount of socialism to civilize it, is still the best system I've heard of! All your talk about mafia seems a little unrelated to anything we've got going and is not truly germane to this thread, IMHO!
I think you may be surprised that an organic market based solution is already in the works. Oil at $100 and higher will do more to force conservation than any government subsidies. Oil consumption dropped .5% in 2006. I don't have the numbers for 2007 yet, but I'm betting it is lower and will drop more in 2008 when gasoline is over $4.00.
And when the electric bill is $300 a month, folks tend to turn off the lights when they leave the room.
Dictatorship is not efficient. Market mechanisms work more efficiently. In a dictatorship, important decisions are taken by one person, who cannot be competent in all areas. Having different companies work on products next to each other, each with their own specialists and each coming up with different solutions, that works more efficiently, as the market weeds out those with the lesser prospects and rewards the most promising ones.
A low flat tax would be fairer, especially in combination with:
1. high tax exempt rate;
2. abolition of deductions and loopholes;
3. a shift away from a system focusing on income, towards taxing transactions instead.
As the article discusses, taxing financial transactions would allow us to stop taxing income altogether. Personally, I prefer a FeeBate policy.
"1. high tax exempt rate;"
When our country first incorporated the income tax the income exemption was $3000 per individual and $4000 for married couples.
that figures out to an inflation adjusted income of 59+K and 78+K
"2. abolition of deductions and loopholes;"
Now this surprises me. Sam you are such a proponent of social engineering you must realize that that is the basis of loop holes and deductions, ie. we want people to buy houses to help the building industry (and others) who hires lots of low income workers which helps the economy both nationally and locally so we offer a deduction of the interest paid on home loans.
"3. a shift away from a system focusing on income, towards taxing transactions instead."
You haven't shown that your "taxing transactions" is anything but marginally better than the existing income tax we now have, as a matter of fact our income tax can be easier made more fair with a simple stroke of the pen rather than creating a whole new tax program at great expense.
FeeBate policy, There isn't a more regressive tax idea out there than your freebate idea. Every item in every retail store would increase in cost to the consumer, most every service provided to consumers would increase in cost if such feebates were to be enacted.
With an income tax or even sales tax the lower income households can be offered some relief with your feebate scheme there is no possible relief for them.
By far the most fair tax would be a national sales tax.
Essentials can be exempted for the sake of the poor, black market industries can not escape its reach, it would foster a renewed interest in saving and investing.
As we all know, the AMT has a cutoff for low income filers as well.
Yes, a sales tax would be regressive to a point but a big benefit of a sales tax is the elimination of the IRS and billions that are spent annually in preparing income tax returns by our society.
Presidential appointees on both sides have been frustrated by the union resistance for years.
The quote from Warren Buffett is about the AMT, a flat tax that hits the middle class most of all.
Flat tax bad, progressive income tax with an AMT - not good, a progressive income tax - very good. We haven't had one in awhile.
How big is this hidden extra tax? Just look alone at how many people are working in accountancy firms and in administration within companies. Just look at companies that invest in R&D just for tax reasons. Ask any company how much time they spend on keeping records, staff administration and other things required for tax. Look at all the wasteful efforts to lower the tax bill, the economic futility of it. Add it all up and it amounts to some 5% of the economy.
This cost of tax compliance and avoidance is a hidden tax to the economy that hits the poor most. Every item in every retail store increases 5% in cost to the consumer, most every service provided to consumers increases by 5%. If we instead had a financial transaction tax of 5%, we could get rid of all other taxes, including this hidden extra tax. There would be no need to keep records for tax. Instead, banks could simply deduct 5% from transactions. Taking into account more instances of multiple taxation, such as products sold from producer to wholesaler, then to retailer and finally consumer, then the tax could be even lower than 5%. Removal of the wasteful efforts to avoid and comply with income taxes would benefit the economy more, stimulate economy growth and create numerous new and more productive job opportunities, including jobs for those currently working on tax compliance.
In conclusion, a shift away from taxing income towards taxing transactions makes sense. Nevertheless, I must add that - as said - I personally prefer a FeeBate policy, which wouldn't tax for the sake of raising more revenue for government, but which seeks to achieve certain goals. A FeeBate policy isn't a tax, but instead a policy to shift consumer behavior, by discouraging consumers to buy specific products while encouraging better alternatives. The idea is that the fees go to rebates for better alternatives, which will become accordingly cheaper.
The quote shows problems with the progressive income tax system, with or without AMT. Warren Buffett, the world's third-richest, was last year taxed at 17.7% on his taxable income of more than $46 million, while his receptionist was taxed at about 30%. Meanwhile, corporate tax rate is 20% and lots of businesses pay little or no tax. They will deliberately avoid making profits by investing in R&D and by buying up promising small companies. This allows them to pay their high income staff partly in shares that don't pay out much dividend, but that promise appreciation. As a result, staff pay less income tax (which at higher incomes would be 35%), while selling their shares will attract taxes of a mere 15% tax on capital gains. By comparison, Warren Buffett's receptionist is taxed at about 30%. The current system is unproductive and forces most people and businesses to use accountants and lawyers. Such a system doesn't work for the poor, it works for the accountants and lawyers.
I don't know what Buffet pays his receptionist but if it is high enough to put her in the 30% bracket, she is the highest paid receptionist in the world! I'd have to question just what services she was actually providing! And Buffet's 17% on taxable income would not work according to the tax tables I've seen. I guess I have the audacity to doubt your veracity on this one!
However, keep that imagination working and keep writing! I do enjoy your ideas.
I'll go for that national sales tax if it is applied equally and fairly, which would never fly. If everyone paid the tax on everything they spend, it would be fair. In other words, buy a share of stock, pay the tax. Hire an attorney (or ditch digger, mechanic, etc.) and pay the tax on their wage. Buy a company and pay the tax. Buy a bond and pay the tax. That way it would affect the wealth just the way it affects me.
Of course, this would eliminate day trading and a lot of other stock transactions and would hit the wealthy too much to ever become law.
"The largest companies and the wealthiest people pay almost no taxes. They set up business structures that - on purpose - make little or no profit, yet they keep growing and keep buying up other companies. The system is wasteful and this constitutes a hidden extra tax on society."
To your first sentence:
Lets look at the numbers,
96 percent of all federal tax revenue comes from half of all taxpayers.
53 percent of all federal tax revenue comes from the top 5% of all taxpayers.
3.5 percent of all federal tax revenue comes from the bottom 50% of all taxpayers.
44 million taxpayers are estimated to owe no federal income tax and will receive a refund for every dollar that was withheld from their paychecks over the past year thanks to the new 10 percent bracket.
Source: U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
A second point to remember, there is no such thing as a corporate tax all corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.
Asside from those very important points I agree that the graduated tax system is way to complicated and it would be mor fair if many of the deductions were removed.
But again taxes can be a great social motivator, you youself are wanting to use them to force people to change to alternative energies by penalizing their fossil fuel use and giving those monies to producers of alternative energies.
Hech Sam you even want to penalize the meat eaters of our country and give that money to the vegans.
You can't rightfully complain about the current use of deductions when you are suggesting the same thing, only according to your preferences.
"I'll go for that national sales tax if it is applied equally and fairly"
LOL,
In our society it doesn't matter what tax system is put into place it will be corrupted and end up benefiting a particular group of people.
You need to re-examine your statement. Consumers don't pay taxes, business do! Whatever the average consumer gets in his hand, he spends in it's entirety. Only businesses and wealth person have excess funds left over to pay with. Therefore, whatever the consumer doesn't get in cash due to taxes, he doesn't have to give to the corporate entities. So they are the ones actually paying the taxes!
Money goes through the consumer's hands like water through a sieve. Not so the corporate interests and the wealthy. Think it through and you'll know what I've stated is fact!
I do share your opinion of taxing meat eaters to subsidize vegans, the very idea sucks! And I tend to agree with the difficulty of instituting a tax that is equitable.
But it is inherrently unfair to tax all transactions, especially when I am just moving money from one account to another.
"You need to re-examine your statement."
I don't think so! If we exact a tax on a business that tax gets transfered to the end consumer! Period! End of statement!
Carl (and the rest of your handle)
Are you talking about fees charged by the brokerage company or taxes? (I am not a trader so I don't know).
I realize that it would be disastrous to traders to be taxed on every transaction made, but it doesn't how much money a person makes in stocks it the sales tax is paid!
No, I'm not talking about the broker's fee, although it is part of the cost basis. There is an SEC fee on transactions which is rather minor. All stock/bond trades have a cost basis which is usually the greater part of a round trip (buy and sell) transaction. If one were taxed only on the profit and that was the only tax, assuming income taxes were abolished, it would work out fine, costing much less in tax than most investors pay. Obviously a tax on the entire amount would be prohibitive and the investor would lose all his capital in a very short time. Also I sometimes move funds to my global account so I can trade in Japan or Germany. No profit is made and the funds stay within the same brokerage. Some of my foreign investments are also subject to a 15% withholding tax on dividends and certain types of sales.
As for a sales tax on stock purchases as Larry M suggested, Why stop there?
Tax employer paid health benefits and life insurance as the compensation it really is. Tax medical and dental services. Funeral services and nursing home expenses. College tuition is a lucrative target. That should make a lot of people happy!
Anything wrong with that? Well they held hands with GM and Ford and the government and said we all needed cars, so we all bought cars. Now they say,
you need public transportaton but the poor oil companies we gonna give them corporate welfare and the hell with the childen with no health insurance. Oh the answer they have for that one is , SOCIAlizED MEDICINE WE AiNT GOING FOR THAT!!!
But you can't drive people into cars as a public policy, then have the oil companies squeal like stuck pigs when better gas mileage is required, which they already had, all along, isn't anybody angry that they want us to burn more of their cancer gas that pollutes our trees and our noses and stings our eyes and gives us cancer? Soldiers
are dying for the commodity that is drying up, while GM builds cars bigger. Japan gave us the blueprint for making future cars that run and are efficient. what did we do? Loaned Lee Iacoa billions and what did we get? the K cart. thats right. They wouldnt run when they were built. who asked the little guy who loaned them the money what he wanted? No, and don't be surprised at the new president. No one knows hows the voting machings will work, and if you watch closely, anything that is tried once that works will be snuck in one more time.
Isn't anyone concernd that children are dying.? But the president interfered in a private decision to allow a brain dead woman to die. It's just one outrage afte another. Our attorney general heinrich, duh, torture?? duh?? I dunno.
Has anyone caught on yet that we have lived a nightmare the last seven years?
We need to go back to thinking about a woman in the whitehouse, a gay couple,
a black couple, a Hispanic president! what about a native born Arab? Or any other nationality? Other countries have used these people and succeeded beyond the wildest expectations.
I got a regualar retirement check and had a little 401 k invested in stocks. So far, the state, the VA Hospital, and the feds have pestered me about that itty bitty 5 k account (now 4k). The FBI sent me a questionaire, would you prosecute terrorists? the feds (IRS ) suggested I was trying to avoid my income taxes because I (legally) hadn't filed
yet for 2005(I have since filed, they owe me $100. A few weeks ago my kid and I were tailed to a restaurant and my car blocked in, scaring my kid badly. I don't scare easily anymore. Is that a bad thing? A couple days later a couple cops were watching me as I drove out of the parking lot. when I came back in they were still there. Staring me down. I just waved. Things must be tough sledding at the cops, is all I got to say. I'm in a wheelchair--I think that maybe I paid my dues. I respect the office of the presidency. I just think the man in there is nuts. I said the same about Nixon.
Thanks for the encouragement, James, but I have the audacity to imagine that this is not merely a fiction of imagination. I must admit that the figures surprised me too, James, but the Washingtion Post is a usually reliable source, so I didn't bother to check things out further, but feel free to do so. The URL is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html
Moreover, the situation acts merely as an example of things that are wrong with the progressive income tax system. I'm sure there are numerous further examples.
I agree that where churches effectively become large businesses, they should be taxed accordingly. One way to accomplish this is by switching away from income tax towards taxing transactions.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/274517
Many rich people do pay a lot of tax, but many other rich people don't. They all spend a lot of money too. If transactions were taxed, they would all end up paying a lot of tax, while how much they pay will depend on how the tax is implemented. The poor who spend less would pay less taxes. Where needed, the poor could be supported through vouchers, while they will also benefit from the rebates I propose.
Why should you have to move money around? Banks are just exploiting their cartel privileges, forcing you to take a separate account (with little or no interest) when you write out checks, while you only get paid good interest if you don't touch your money for a set period. That way, the banks protect their own speculations. But if we opened things up, you would be paid good interest on a single account that allowed you to do anything you needed.
"Why should you have to move money around?"
Should?
If another bank is offering a better rate I might WANT to move my money around.
"But if we opened things up, you would be paid good interest on a single account that allowed you to do anything you needed."
How is that Sam?
How do we get to 'getting paid good interest on a single account' from "opening things up"?
Banks and financial institutions make money from loaning our money out to people, they charge interest on those loans and pay us a bit for using our money.
If you're suggesting that we require a certain percentage be paid on those accounts then the percentage charged on loans will have to rise as well.
Sorry, not end of statement, they have to get the money somewhere! And it's not coming from the poor because they don't have it! Only business pay tax.
OK, I'll admit that is a stupid statement, almost as stupid as only consumers pay tax. The truth is that it is like a big assembly line belt going around and every time it goes past the tax collector he gets a handful. If he hits it in the consumer end it hits consumers first and hardest, if he hits it in the business end it hits business first and hardest. The truth is we all pay tax, consumer, business and corporate. Everyone but churches that is. I've heard that old saw about only consumers since I was a child and it's just as wrong today as it was then.
Very well said! I did go with your link and read it. I believe that Buffet was telling the truth about his taxes being 17% of his income. What I don't believe is that they were 17% of his "taxable adjusted gross income" on the form he submitted if he submitted an income of $43,000,000! The math does not work and I believe math.
His receptionist, on the other hand, would be earning over $100,000 per year to get up to the 30% bracket. That one I can't buy and you shouldn't either. People can say anything at a political rally to make a point. Don't try banking it!
Don't question the authenticity of the source but I would doubt they would have asked him for tax returns before printing a statement like that as it really didn't matter that much. Buffet was trying to state something on principle and his specifics may have gotten very slippery.