Would you pay an extra 1% on every transaction if it ridded us of Income Tax and the National Debt?, page 2

reply to post by American_Soviets

---

I agree there are tactical reasons for not paying off the debt, as well as just pure laziness.

Why pay off the debt when you have the strongest military in the world? We can continue consuming resources from around the world, on borrowed money, while increasing our global presence and control, and nobody is capable of stopping us at this point in time. I'm not saying it is the "right" thing to do, but it is a strong tactical approach. It isn't like anyone is going to come breaking our arms and legs looking for their loan to get repaid.

The strategic oil reserve and the public works projects from the early 20th century were the first signs of this strategy. Buy and hoard oil, explore and develop wells, but don't produce them. Build infrastructure for future use, but don't implement it. In the meantime, use our booming economy to consume the limited resources from the Middle East and use the cheap labor from Asia and Africa. Educate our own people and retain only the high-end technical jobs and expertise within our own borders while outsourcing the low-end menial labor jobs to countries with an overabundance of laborers and none of those pesky human rights advocates.

Again, I'm not saying it is the "right" thing to do, but it has its place in global strategy. Even if the country came into a windfall of Revenue, paying off the National Debt is probably very, very low on the priority list. The money would be better served developing more infrastructure and technology. We don't have to pay off any foreign debts until a new superpower emerges in the world to challenge our dominant position.

reply to post by whatukno

---

But 1% on what? If i buy gas will it be 1% of my bill or 1% per gallon? If i buy food will it be 1% for my bill or 1% per item?

See there can be sneaky little loop holes they wont tell you about that could end up costing more.
But if it was laid out and was 1% off the bill/s then hell yeah i would do it.

reply to post by Ahabstar

---

Its close to but not a VAT tax. A VAT tax is a tax placed on the value ( difference between an items selling price and its cost). The fee propsed is based on the entire items cost.

HR 4646 - Snopes.com

Either way I would be for it.

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.

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

NO! Why? Because the greedy so & so's would still waste all our hard-earned tax money, & before you could blink they'd have increased our "contributions" to 10% or more! Nope, Greed begats Greed, they won't be able to help themselves- and at our expense!

reply to post by Xcathdra

---

Yes, the difference being is that a VAT tax consists of a full list of exact items and the exact tax that those items are to incur. In that regard a VAT is almost like a Tariff to be paid directly by the consumer (as some corruption and protectionism can exist on such a list for example 3 cents for a Pepsi and 5 cents for a Coke).

The first question anyone would ask is why is Coke a nickel? And the simple explanation would be that some Coke bottles of Coke are made with sugar instead of High Fructose Corn Syrup, like all the ones made in Mexico (which are only bottled in glass bottles)

The largest hurdle in creating a full VAT list is that if anyone sued on the grounds that it could be construed as a tariff on product sold between states and is therefore unconstitutional. Of course that would mean getting the courts to agree that a VAT is a domestic tariff.

reply to post by Ahabstar

---

I still think this could be a good idea. I have seen states draft taxes that specifcally spelled out what the collected tax can be used on. Designing legislation that states the tax collected in this setup can only be used for paying off the debt.

I would like to couple that with some type of consitutional amendment for a balanced buget (with obvious exceptions for times of war / disasters etc).

Done correctly, and with the voters keeping tabls on their elected officals, this could be good for long term development.

As far as a tarrif between States... If its done at the Federal level I cant see how they would have standing for a law suit. The tax is there regardless of what state its sold in.

Memorial day thoughts.
  Posted 3 days ago with 11 member flags

Global governance and the challenge to the American Constitution
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags

Explosive Scoop on Obama from Breitbart.com
  Posted 10 days ago with 1 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: