Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Would you pay an extra 1% on every transaction if it ridded us of Income Tax and the National Debt?

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Think about it for a moment, 1% added onto every transaction, from restaurant purchases to buying your next car. But no longer would you have an income tax taken from your paycheck and in 7 years there would be no national debt.

Sound implausible?

Not to Representative Chaka Fattah, who earlier this year sponsored H.R. 4646

What do you all think? Replace a cumbersome income tax code with a simple 1% transaction fee? Can it be done? Should it be done?


edit on 9/16/2010 by whatukno because: fixed title




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
if its plausable, yes, deffinatly should be done. its only 1 cent on every dollar when you think about it. and that means you would only spend 1% of your money on taxes in the long run as well. this is even good for us when it comes to people on welfare and illegals because they'ed be forced to pay taxes as well!

edit to add, NM its a transaction fee, it wouldn't eliminate any old taxes, however, its still a good idea to get outta debt!

edit on 16-9-2010 by clever024 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by clever024
 


Not immediately however...

SEC. 6. REPEAL OF INCOME TAX ON INDIVIDUALS.


(a) In General- Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the following provisions:

(1) Part I of subchapter A.

(2) Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A.

(3) Sections 31, 32, 35, 36, and 36A.

(b) Repeal of Alternative Minimum Tax for Individuals- Section 55 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(f) Exemption for Noncorporate Taxpayers- The tentative minimum tax for any taxpayer other than a corporation shall be zero.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

SEC. 7. PRIORITIZATION FOR REPAYMENT OF NATIONAL DEBT.

To take into account the national security concerns of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall prioritize the repayment of the national debt and shall take into account circumstances in which the Secretary of the Treasury determines the early repayment of outstanding debt is detrimental to the fiscal stability of the United States.

SEC. 8. STUDY AND REPORT.

(a) Study- The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, shall--

(1) analyze methods to prevent and relieve any distortions among economic sectors created by the implementation of this Act,

(2) make recommendations regarding the application of the transaction fee established under this Act to barter transactions which do not involve a payment instrument,

(3) assess the transaction fee established under this Act as a tool of Federal fiscal policy, including an impact analysis on the elimination or retention of existing tax expenditures, incentives, penalties, and credits, including--

(A) the earned income credit,

(B) the alternative minimum tax,

(C) the child tax credit, and

(D) the deduction for mortgage interest,

(4) analyze the extent to which the transaction fee could offset the cost to the Federal Government of increasing discretionary and mandatory spending, particularly expenditures related to education, defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,

(5) make recommendations with respect to the Internal Revenue Service, which--

(A) assume the transition and grandfathering of all existing personnel of the Internal Revenue Service,

(B) identify the elements of the current Internal Revenue Service needed to administer the transaction fee, and

(C) examine the feasibility of modifying the overall mission and jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service from one focused on tax law application to one focused on uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the Federal Government, and

(6) make determinations and recommendations for methods of phasing out the income tax on individuals before its repeal under section 4 in a manner which is consistent with the purposes described in section 2(b)(3).

(b) Report- The Secretary of the Treasury shall, not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to Congress a written report containing the results, determinations, and recommendations of the Secretary under subsection (a).


Instead of an income tax, you would pay transaction fees on things you purchased. If I am reading this correctly.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
I have advocated just such a thing for years now. However I advocate some exemptions for food, medications, medical aid and legal aid.

Some have called it a VAT or National Sales Tax. Call it what you will, but I think that it would accomplish several things at once. With more money in people's pockets from no income tax, it would encourage spending. It would also give people more incentive to save money to raise starting capital for their own small businesses, investments, etc.

But most importantly, it puts a very strong leash on government spending. No one would want commit the political suicide of raising that 1% tax to say 2% for example. It would be too public and would require way too much explaining as to why. Therefore making it a very strong check and balance in favor of the people over teh government.

And lastly, since most states already have sales tax, the states would be the tax collectors. That in itself adds a balance from the states to the federal government.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Exactly, if you put this in with a balanced budget amendment, in theory you could even eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank and return our currency to the Federal Government's control. Once that the US was debt free, a lot of good could come out of it.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
What happens if I transfer $1,000,000 of my hard earned cash to another bank? Do I pay $10,000 in tax to do so? If so, then NO WAY!!! Keep you transaction tax and all other taxes to yourselves.

What happens when I buy $1,000,000 of shares to make 5% profit, which amounts to $50,000 dollars. Do I pay tax twice at 1% - one for the buy and one for the sell or making it $20,500 or do I get taxed on the $50,000 profit for $500?

I don't owe any money to anyone and I don't see why I should be taxed to pay off other people's debt to banksters. Taxation is an old favourite trick of the communists KEEP IT AND SUCK ON IT!



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   
It's just one more dishonest way to make the poor pay more and the rich pay less.

The wealthy laugh when we fall for their propaganda.
The don't want to return to the slave days, as then they had to pay for the slaves' upkeep.
What they want is a free ride on our backs while we work ourselves into early graves to make them even wealthier.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I would agree to such a tax.

I would be more comfortable if the legislation came with a Constitutional amendment that limited the percentage of the tax. Let's say 3%.

I don't doubt they would find a way around that though.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
It may work, but there would have to be conditions met, namely a massive overhaul of the entire financial systems curently used, the abolition of central banks and the government issuing notes instead (thus avoiding the huge interest paid to the banks).
In fact, if it wasn't for the banks creating money out of thin air and issuing to the government at interest, the debt would be a hell of a lot less, or non-existent.

The whole role of government would also have to change too, to get rid of the massive waste and lack of accountability. In the private sector, we have to account for every penny we spend or claim and are held accountable for the decisions we make. The same must be applied to the government if we are ever to haul ourselves out of this financial control based on the debt system, by removing all influence of the international bankers from the decision processes.

Of course, they are not going to go quietly and allow the people to get any control back without being forced to do so. The elections we have and the idea that the public vote can change things is laughable.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Macdon
What happens if I transfer $1,000,000 of my hard earned cash to another bank? Do I pay $10,000 in tax to do so? If so, then NO WAY!!! Keep you transaction tax and all other taxes to yourselves.

What happens when I buy $1,000,000 of shares to make 5% profit, which amounts to $50,000 dollars. Do I pay tax twice at 1% - one for the buy and one for the sell or making it $20,500 or do I get taxed on the $50,000 profit for $500?


It depends how much money you have.
If you're middle-class then yes, buy a house for $250,000 you'll pay $2,500 for this tax on top of stamp-duty and all the other taxes that apply at the moment.
Initially, that is. The hard part is introducing a new tax. Increasing it later is easy.

Of course if you are wealthy, you'll do what the wealthy do; employ an expensive accountant who can help you fudge the books and get out of such taxes altogether.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


If its plausible yes I would I'd Pay two percent, just as long as we could use that to shore up Social Security and Medicare to. Nice find.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Does the USA not have some kind of VAT already then? It's a genuine question as I genuinely don't know.

The UK has VAT at 17.5% (not 1% as the OP proposes) and quite high income tax too and it doesn't seem to have helped us avoid having a huge national debt

edit on 16-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The upside is that it's at least one way to collect taxes from illegal residents but I'm sure it would also give rise to an even greater sub-market for goods than what already exists.

I do tend to agree with this:


Originally posted by Kailassa
Of course if you are wealthy, you'll do what the wealthy do; employ an expensive accountant who can help you fudge the books and get out of such taxes altogether.


And most certainly I would never support it unless there were exemptions which made it less regressive such as:


Originally posted by Ahabstar
exemptions for food, medications, medical aid and legal aid.




edit on 16/9/2010 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners
Does the USA not have some kind of VAT already then? It's a genuine question as I genuinely don't know.

The UK has VAT at 17.5% (not 1% as the OP proposes) and quite high income tax too and it doesn't seem to have helped us avoid having a huge national debt

edit on 16-9-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

We do not have a VAT, although some have been proposed in 'trial balloons', but didn't go anywhere.

Great point with the national debt. I guess politicians and bureaucrats can't figure out that there is a bottom to the purse.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
It wouldn't bring in enough money. The US government spends in this year 45% of Gross Domestic Product. The 1% tax would only take in 1% of Gross domestic product.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by christianpatrick
 


It's 1% on every transaction not 1% of the GDP.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Think about it for a moment, 1% added onto every transaction, from restaurant purchases to buying your next car. But no longer would you have an income tax taken from your paycheck and in 7 years there would be no national debt.





Before there is any financial reform, this "government" has got to be replaced. Failure to do so would render any new system corrupt from the start.

Consider what we have witnessed:

1) The day before 9/11, the Rumsfield news conference where he says the pentagon can't account for 2.3 trillion dollars (with a "T")

2) 360 tons (yes tons) of cash flown to Iraq where a large percentage promptly goes missing. And there's no pretense at finding out what happened. None. That's about as in-your-face as it gets.

3) how about the 9/11 attack on the pentagon that happens to hit the accounting offices?

4) how about the absolutely blatant contractor fraud in Iraq? Like
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

5) bailouts anyone?


Point being - we can't continue to fund this institutionalized waste, fraud and abuse that the current system represents. Restore the republic first - financial responsibility will follow.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
but why pay off a debt thats been made by warmongering and gone to privatly owned companies within the u.s ?

sure infrastructure such as roads and schools i get but the debt thats been made in the past 20+ years is more then 90% on war toys,

heck your teaching your kids zombie survival for crying out loud,

i wouldent pay a dime if it was my call ,..



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I don't like the "transaction" tax, but a National Sales tax to replace income tax is exactly what we need!!

No need for "extra" taxes or tax brackets or anything else. Those spending the most money would be paying the most taxes. That seems perfectly fair. Some of those in the lowest income brackets pay the least amount of taxes, but spend exorbitant amounts of money. A National Sales Tax would collect tax from those individuals. A lot of incomes are cash only, and maybe they even come from illegal sources. Yet those same people are buying goods through legal channels, so a National Sales Tax would collect the appropriate tax. This would do away with the cumbersome tax code and the yearly phenomenon of tax returns, advance tax loans, and and expensive tax audits. It would save the government a lot of money, and it would bring in more tax revenue.

National Sales Tax is the way to go!! Either that or a "Flat Tax." I say a 5% National Sales tax is the best bet, but I would also support a 15% Flat Federal Income Tax on all income above a certain poverty level cutoff. I prefer the Sales Tax road by far.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Macdon

I don't owe any money to anyone and I don't see why I should be taxed to pay off other people's debt to banksters. Taxation is an old favourite trick of the communists KEEP IT AND SUCK ON IT!


Talk about free-loading! If you don't owe money to anyone then you should not be privy to any services or infrastructure that has been furnished with tax dollars. You can't use our roads, your children can't use our public schools, you are not allowed to land on our runways, you are not entitled to clean water being stored behind dams built with tax dollars, you are not entitled to police or fire protection, etc...

You sound like the free-loader to me.






top topics



 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join