Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I got this by email today. I do not believe everything I get by email.
Can anyone verify this? This is the actual text I received (none of these are my comments) (whoever sent it said it is verified by Snopes):
1% tax on all bank transactions*HR 4646 - Is this a new or old bill??
1% tax on all bank transactions HR 4646 - ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes, it's true! Check out HR 4646. *(see below copied from Snopes)
President Obama's finance team is recommending a one percent (1%) transaction fee (TAX). Obama's plan is to sneak it in after the November elections to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution - banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your account, will have a 1% tax charged.
If your paycheck or your social security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction. *If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay Obama $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check into your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged. *You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, Obama takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.
If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.
*
Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see on e penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy's under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.
Oh, and by the way, you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it right. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank. Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.
Some will say, oh well, it's just 1%. Are you kidding me? It's a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can
also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, "oh, that's not really a tax, it's a user fee"! Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year's banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. *Still think it's no big deal???
1.*snopes.com: Debt Free America Act*•••*
Is the U.S. government proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions?
*...It is true. The bill is*HR-4646*introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. Their plan is to sneak it in after the...moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R.*4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the... *...[2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R.*4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction...
Last edited by RiverBird; 07-24-2011 at 10:00 AM..
No its not. It actually started in 2004 as a request to do a study to replace Federal taxes. Its has had different versions from the same person and all have failed to move.
It isn't hard to type "snopes HR4646" into google.
Quote:
Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act has no sponsors other than himself, has been languishing in committee ever since it was introduced, and has about as much chance of passing as a snowball does of surviving hell. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings have garnered vastly, vastly outstrips any real possibility that such legislation will actually be enacted.
Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings are erroneous:
Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax." The proposal for the Debt Free America Act is purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.
Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or has publicly supported it.
The included link that supposedly shows Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedates the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually refer to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio. That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too has since languished in committee without being brought to a vote.)
I love how people ask here instead of looking up the law and reading the date/text themselves.
I looked up who this person was... apparently a Pennsylvania Democrat Representative who has tried multiple times to insert this type of bill/audit... had one co-sponsor from another Democrat in Washington state... weird guy... He did elect to replace the federal income taxes with it should this become law... basically a consumption tax... I be willing to bet that he is going to try again... not exactly old or new because he keeps trying over and over and over...
I looked up who this person was... apparently a Pennsylvania Democrat Representative who has tried multiple times to insert this type of bill/audit... had one co-sponsor from another Democrat in Washington state... weird guy... He did elect to replace the federal income taxes with it should this become law... basically a consumption tax... I be willing to bet that he is going to try again... not exactly old or new because he keeps trying over and over and over...
I would actually prefer a bank tax to a income tax
I would actually prefer a bank tax to a income tax
or even if we got a reduced income tax for it.
Its almost impossible to do that... because it is notoriously difficult to tax "cash transactions"... a LOT of small businesses cheat taxes that way by hiding cash... and its hard for the government to go after them because they can't readily identify them...
Gotta love the political environment bringing out such stupidity. This is like all the charges so and so is for raising your gas taxes because he dared to say looking into an increase in gas taxes as part of tax law changes made sense.
No its not. It actually started in 2004 as a request to do a study to replace Federal taxes. Its has had different versions from the same person and all have failed to move.
But you should send a Thank You note to your bank for each time they charge you a tranaction fee at the ATM.
fattah's plan was to find a way to bring yet more government revenue in on the backs of working americans, in a sneaky way (of course), because people don't get reelected when they announce they want to get at your money for themselves.
he touted the possibility that such a system would bring in so much money it would allow for greatly increased federal spending.
isn't that always the problem with government? the more they get, the more they want. they never think in terms of efficiency or what they can cut, just what they can spend......
that is why governments love inflation, because it is a sneaky tax on the citizens.
There are two ways this could go, both would be disastrous to ordinary people, which would satisfy the political and economic objectives of the rich and famous.
1. Corporations are exempt, which means that only private individuals would pay the entire tax burden.
1(a). People making over about $50K would incorporate in order to exempt themselves, and POOR private individuals would pay the entire tax burden.
2. Corporations are not exempt, which means they would all find a way to pass that tax burden on to the consumers. And, thus, only private individuals would pay the entire tax burden, which would add up to maybe 3-5%, by time all the corporate liabilities were passed down the line to us bottom feeders. Like, your electric bill would go up 4%, to offset the 1% the power company has to pay when they deposit your payment in their account, and another 1% when they withdraw it to buy their power wholesale. And the actual power producer raises their wholesale price 2% to offset their deposit and withdrawal of the retailer's payment.
Last edited by jtur88; 07-25-2011 at 07:54 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
