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.
Do you want a bank run? Cause' this is how you get bank runs.
If I have $200,000.00 in the bank and I take it out $1,000 at a time x 200 times or take it out in one lump sum, I pay the same amount of tax. Where is the incentive to make a run and pull it all out?
The problem of the 1% transaction tax is determining the value of non cash transactions, especially in bartering, which would grow larger in scale as a result. The IRS, or whatever government entity is responsible, would flood the courts with people undervaluing their transactions, either out of ignorance or to avoid the tax. It could make an even larger, and more unfair bureaucracy than what the IRS is right now.
The idea sounds worthy of having a thread by itself.
Last edited by Cruzincat; 05-19-2014 at 09:21 AM..
How about the people who are forced out of their homes because the taxes reach the point they can no longer afford them ? How is that fair ? They have a piece of paper from the bank that says they own the home, yet they are forced to sell because of taxes.
How about the people who are forced out of their homes because the taxes reach the point they can no longer afford them ? How is that fair ? They have a piece of paper from the bank that says they own the home, yet they are forced to sell because of taxes.
This is one of my issues with property tax. To me, with the current construct, one can never actually own their land because of the taxes attached to the land. However, it seems to be a scheme that all of the country has adopted. I wonder, is there anywhere in America where one can own land and not be taxed on that land with the threat of eviction if one does not pay those taxes?
The means to better government is not figuring out ways to increase revenues but to reduce corruption and self interest in government.
Renting land is a means test.
There is something about needs and abilities that always comes up, usually in the form of a new way to explain communism and how much better we'd all be off if we'd just make government bigger, let it dictate just a little more and let the smart people tell everyone else how to run their lives.
When the people who are part of the problem start telling everyone else how to fix the problem, it's time to re-evaluate their positions and cull the herd.
Better government is one that takes less of GDP to do its basic jobs. Government when it gets into many areas is just inefficient by its very nature.
But a 1% 'transaction tax' would solve everything.
A general 1% tax on any and all transactions, including contracts (taxed at a rate of 1% of the money involved) - and the same tax on every single transaction humanly possible (including bank deposits, buying a loaf of bread, etc, etc) and it would enable the income tax to be eliminated completely since it is nothing more than a tool to control classes and make social stratification possible. A 1% tax on every financial transaction (that includes Wall Street) alone would fund 50% of government expenditures alone annually. It is not about taxing existing wealth and/or earned income: a 1% transaction tax. Way easier to enforce than the IRS tax code and every other way the government has dreamed up to take money away.
1% of everything. It would actually enable the country to grow economically on a level unknown before, assuming all of the other ways to tax and control were eliminated.
If the Federal Govt cannot cut a penny from every dollar (1%), or even try to... why would people want to pay an extra 1% to them?
If I have $200,000.00 in the bank and I take it out $1,000 at a time x 200 times or take it out in one lump sum, I pay the same amount of tax. Where is the incentive to make a run and pull it all out?
The problem of the 1% transaction tax is determining the value of non cash transactions, especially in bartering, which would grow larger in scale as a result. The IRS, or whatever government entity is responsible, would flood the courts with people undervaluing their transactions, either out of ignorance or to avoid the tax. It could make an even larger, and more unfair bureaucracy than what the IRS is right now.
The idea sounds worthy of having a thread by itself.
I guess I wasn't really clear because I kept it too short in an attempt at being pithy and making a pop culture reference with the phraseology. My concern is the one you have in people seeking to avoid doing what would be taxable financial transactions under the law, and that such avoidance could reach proportions significant enough to make the current banking system non-viable, with the potential of a short-term run in the traditional sense if there were clear enough alternatives when the law was passed or if a run-around gained popularity quickly enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
Better government is one that takes less of GDP to do its basic jobs. Government when it gets into many areas is just inefficient by its very nature.
That's true. However, at any level of government spending - either an efficient one or the inefficient bloated one we have now - there will be the need to have some taxes, and making those as equitable and economically non-distorting as possible is a good thing.
The argument for land-rent taxes is a fairness and efficiency argument. The fairness argument is if you have to tax something, better to tax natural resource (such as land) usage than to tax workers, entrepreneurs, and investors in things that were built by people. The efficiency argument is that all the land in the country already exists, so unlike taxing property which discourages development, capital which discourages savings, payroll which discourages labor, income which discourages pretty much all productive activity, etc. you're implementing a tax that will be completely non-distorting because the supply of land is completely inelastic. The argument against is what people posted above about people getting forced out of their homes: which is a legitimate argument, although I would argue that we already do that with property taxes and a land rent would be better in that respect since you'd be paying taxes just on the land and not on the house on top of it.
Last edited by ALackOfCreativity; 05-26-2014 at 10:37 PM..
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.
