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

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
A straight up 2% VAT would be ideal. It would rapidly get tweaked, though. Cigarettes and alcohol would quickly rise to 5%, gasoline would slide upward as well. The system is so reasonable that it doesn't have a chance.




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
lol, anyone who thinks this government will pay off the debt is living in some kind of dream world. uh...we can already pay off the debt because we can print our own money. Hello! but we never will because they don't want us to be debt-free. They want people to be debt-ridden serfs. I can't believe all the people who willingly go for this propaganda. please, wake the f-up! read the grace commission report.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I think it might be an alright idea, with exceptions for food and medications.

I have a question, and maybe I didn't read it well enough; when it says Transactions, does that mean that when I wire money to another account that I am charged one percent for those transactions? Or is it simply buying things? Would it apply to buying stock?

Also though, wouldn't this just be added to state sales taxes? States need money too, so I am guessing that this would just add on to the state sales tax.

Anyways, sales taxes are on the surface 'flat' but in reality regressive, because poorer people spend a higher percentage of their income buying things. It's not that they buy more than rich people, but that they have to spend a higher percentage of their money buying essential things. (Think, clothes, kids' school supplies, etc, and of course food but that has no sales tax.) Whereas the rich have a lot of money but they use it to invest in stocks and the like, meaning they are not subject to sales tax for nearly as many of their purchases. I would say I like the idea of the National Sales Tax if it applies to transactions such as buying stock too, because that is the only way it will really be fair. If it doesn't apply to anything but buying stuff at the grocery store, then it is adding a burden to poor people and really not getting any money out of the rich people, and I wouldn't support that.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by American_Soviets
lol, anyone who thinks this government will pay off the debt is living in some kind of dream world. uh...we can already pay off the debt because we can print our own money. Hello! but we never will because they don't want us to be debt-free. They want people to be debt-ridden serfs. I can't believe all the people who willingly go for this propaganda. please, wake the f-up! read the grace commission report.



That would just increase inflation, making the money worth less, and making it harder to pay off the debt. I think somewhere about 97% of our money isn't cash anyway, most of it is digital.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:48 PM
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.

Sound implausible?


Absolutely would go for it, in fact it would be the only fair taxes, every man, woman and child would pay. This idea has been floated for years with no success.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
It won't work outside of theory .Here in Australia a the Howard Goverment won a election as they opposed the introduction of a sales tax GST .They won and with in months we had GST ! People were pissed so they promised all other taxes would be removed .We still have GST and all other taxes a decade later and all other taxes have been steadily raised . The principle of all these proposed in lue taxes sound great but are a epic fail because of the lying crooks behind the money never keep their word and this will never change . Nuff said .

edit on 16-9-2010 by 13th Zodiac because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Im Canadian, but I do hope that the average downtrodden hard working slave that has been ripped off all along and doesnt even have free or very low cost excellent health care out of the deal should will say no.

I am sure they would rather the super wealthy paid at least a third of their incomes back as usary into public funds and all politiicians, and senators could take a healthy 10% cut to ease costs as well.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I could go for that. The pay as you go plan. As a 1099 employee I hate that tax payoff each April.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Just another tax on the poor.

I live on a veterans disability pension and calif already has a 9% sales tax in some areas. plus high property taxes and a large number of fees and other hidden taxes.

Pay down the National Debt?????? BS the democrats will find a way to spend it and want more just look at Calif.

The rich will find a way around the tax like they always do.

Corporations will pass on the tax and you will pay a extra hidden 1% on top of the 1% tax.(many rich hide behind corporation laws)



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



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



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
And there is the key difference between a !% Transaction Tax and a 5%-15% National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax (Same difference in my book between a sales tax and a VAT).

By making it a 1% Transaction Tax, it is the retailers that will be collecting it and the States sending it in. That way Ohio can keep its 6% Sales tax and California can keep its 9%. They just have to collect and forward 1%.

Now the problem will come as large/rich states see that the smaller/poorer states are not collecting and turning in similar amounts. Basically Federal Redistribution will come to an end as we see it today. No longer would NY taxes collected go towards Tennessee road projects. Or at least not to the degree they do now.

Free ride to college, not from Uncle Sam and Guaranteed Student Loans nor Financial Need Based Grants. But colleges will have to compete for student tuition so prices should drop significantly anyway.

Inner-city crime should also drop. Gone would be HUD Projects and Section 8 housing. They would be limited to short duration rentals as the money dries up. Sure it is not a predetermined fact, but without the backup of free room and board, people will start looking for an actual job as opposed to selling crack all day as the income potential would be about the same.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
We DO NOT need to change the tax or get rid of what we already have. People just need to read the laws they believe they have to follow. If you read the law you would know that most Americans working in the private sector, not receiving federal privileges or benefits don't have to pay any income tax. READ THE LAW it's not very complicated people. Almost everyone knows politicians are crooks, cheats, and thieves but everyone still wants to give them their hard earned money, even when they don't have too. It's almost comical!

Namaste



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I'm from Canada we pay a 12% sales tax on everything except items which cannot be avoided (Baby/children's wear, and feminine hygiene products) We also pay taxes too. Its not so bad, a bit annoying but all taxes are.. Sad thing is most people in the states will see this as yet another tax and complain and moan about how Obama is the anti-Christ-Muslim-Hitler-terrorist seeking to destroy America.

Anything any government does that takes money or changes citizens lives pisses someone off. Be it the rich the poor, old, young, emigrant or home born. You can't make everyone happy. That's politics convincing people that what your doing is good and hoping that they don't get pissed off when you change legislation to better a large portion of peoples lives.

The health care bill is a great example but that is for another topic and I will not start that debate.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I think it would be a good idea for the 1% vat/transaction tax, but it would usher in a barter system, blackmkt capatalism and other under the table operations that also would stimulate the economy in a left handed/quasi criminal sort of way.

Of course the conservatives/GOP/TPM would fight any approach to fiscal responsibility if it was suggested by their hated progressives/liberals no matter how reasonable.










edit on 17-9-2010 by whaaa because: I don't know



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
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.



edit on 18-9-2010 by Xcathdra because: Added more info



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 05:10 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.

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!



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
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.



edit on 18-9-2010 by Xcathdra because: added another thought





top topics
 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join