• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Speckle-Tax - the final solution

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
So I'm kind of worn out on the endless Romney - Obama bashing express. So, this topic is intended to be free of those 2names, no liberal conservative stuff, no political stuff at all. I hope some of you are capable of this.

The Specklebang for President for The Logical Party never really got enough attention for the 2012 race. So, you'll all have another chance in 2016. I've thought a lot about taxes and I've come up with a platform. Useful contributions will be appreciated.

Every item in the tax codes is erased. There are only 3 forms of "taxation" at the Federal level.

Every financial transaction that enters the system will pay a tax of 1/10 of a percent. That percentage is my starting point and I'll be happy to hear what you think.

So, you get a paycheck of $600 a week. You must deposit this in your bank OR you could just cash it. If you put it in the bank, you will pay $1.20. When your bank makes a loan of $600, there will be $1.20 tax. When somebody pays back the loan, there will be $1.20 tax. When Daddy Warbucks invest $1-million in a roast baby farm, he will transfer money from his account and pay a tax of $1,000.00. When he gets his monthly dividend of $10,000.00 he will pay a tax of $10.00. There is no tax on cash transactions UNLESS you deposit the money in a financial institution.

Money is always on the move - trillions and trillions of dollars flow from points A to B to C etc. The small percentage is painless.

This eliminates all personal and corporate taxes. There are just 2 more taxes. 10% of your income is placed in a Mandatory Savings account with an em,ployer match of 5%. The last thing is Specklecare which you will pay 5% and your employer will pay 5%. The last 2 will probably lose some money. They are a separate topic though.

Do you think this would raise enough revenue and do you think it's fair to everyone? Certainly "the rich" move around more money than "the poor" but the percentage is small and identical.

OK, I've tried to make an interesting thread. Anybody in? Take a break from bashing and lets reinvent America.




Specklebang For President 2016

I'm Specklebang and I approve of most things
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So I'm kind of worn out on the endless Romney - Obama bashing express. So, this topic is intended to be free of those 2names, no liberal conservative stuff, no political stuff at all. I hope some of you are capable of this.

The Specklebang for President for The Logical Party never really got enough attention for the 2012 race. So, you'll all have another chance in 2016. I've thought a lot about taxes and I've come up with a platform. Useful contributions will be appreciated.

Every item in the tax codes is erased. There are only 3 forms of "taxation" at the Federal level.

Every financial transaction that enters the system will pay a tax of 1/10 of a percent. That percentage is my starting point and I'll be happy to hear what you think.

So, you get a paycheck of $600 a week. You must deposit this in your bank OR you could just cash it. If you put it in the bank, you will pay $1.20. When your bank makes a loan of $600, there will be $1.20 tax. When somebody pays back the loan, there will be $1.20 tax. When Daddy Warbucks invest $1-million in a roast baby farm, he will transfer money from his account and pay a tax of $1,000.00. When he gets his monthly dividend of $10,000.00 he will pay a tax of $10.00. There is no tax on cash transactions UNLESS you deposit the money in a financial institution.

Money is always on the move - trillions and trillions of dollars flow from points A to B to C etc. The small percentage is painless.

This eliminates all personal and corporate taxes. There are just 2 more taxes. 10% of your income is placed in a Mandatory Savings account with an em,ployer match of 5%. The last thing is Specklecare which you will pay 5% and your employer will pay 5%. The last 2 will probably lose some money. They are a separate topic though.

Do you think this would raise enough revenue and do you think it's fair to everyone? Certainly "the rich" move around more money than "the poor" but the percentage is small and identical.

OK, I've tried to make an interesting thread. Anybody in? Take a break from bashing and lets reinvent America.




Specklebang For President 2016

I'm Specklebang and I approve of most things
I don't think that a transaction tax that low would raise enough revenue, and I could see some issues with in the implementation, and I don't particularly see why you would want to incentivise cash transactions over any other type of transaction.

The imagep income tax system replacement plan consists of just two income tax rate. The 0% rate, like we had for most of the existance of this country, for everyone making a salary that is within the norm. And a different rate, as low as possible as long as it results in a balanced budget, which would only be taxes on income that is in excess of the norm. I would suggest that $400k per year might be the tax bracket break just because thats about the top normal income for our most educated and skilled profession - the specialist MD. Any income above $400k could easily be called windfall income, and if anyone can't have a decent standard of living at $400k, then there is something wrong with them.

But I do like your mandatory savings account idea. It's very similar to what I would do as a replacement to social security. I wouldn't have the employer contributing at all though, that would just result in a reduction in stated compensation, and what would you do about people like me who have an income but don't have an employer? What I would do would be a straight 10% mandatory savings into a federal savings account that guarantees a rate of return of the inflation rate plus 1%, proceeds could be withdrawn at age 65 at the rate of no more than 5% of total savings per year. I would also have a very small federal sales tax which would be as small as possible and still allow full funding of an "old age insurance policy" for every american which would provide a decent income upon reaching age 85. This would allow people to actually be able to plan how much they need to save for retirement because they would then know then age at which time their savings could be exausted without them having to starve to death or otherwise end their own life. The biggest reason that even reasonable people don't have a retirement savings plan is because they can't do the math because they don't know when they will die - this would eliminate the need to know ones age of death in advance.

I also support a socialized high deductable health insurance plan to replace all current government healthcare spending programs, which would save about $2k per citizen, which would be rebated back to each citizen in the form of a deposit to their healthcare savings account and could be used by each individual to pay for their deductables.

I would eliminate all means tested gov giveaways, subsidies, tax credits, and the like.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I don't know either if Speckle-tax would raise enough revenue but I don't see why it couldn't do so if - say - it was 4/10% of even 7/10. Nobody will have the stress of tracking minor amounts of cash. If I paid you to fix my whatever, are you really just going to keep putting it in your mattress or will you take it to the bank and give up this tiny percentage? The loveliness of Speckle-tax is the absence of citizens having to file tax returns. What little effect there is completely exempts the poor because if you live small, you don't need a bank account. So, sure, those people are tax free. The wealthiest are the ones who move money around the most and thus will pay more. I think the proportion will be completely satisfying to either philosophy. Conservatives would like the "less government" aspect and the liberals would like the rich guy pays more aspect. This replaces all INCOME taxes. Therefore it replaces all SUBSIDIES.

Imag-tax would get enormous resistance from the Conservative side. Basically, you want the rich to pay all the taxes. This isn't politically plausible.

The MSA funding won't be adequate without employer contribution. Sure, some employers might decide to pay lower wages to fund their share of the MSA but this is a better deal than they're getting now in that 5% rate. So, I don't see negative impact. This 15% total will strengthen the amount available at retirement. Self-employed pays the whole 15% - just as you do now for SS. I would cap this at about $150K maximum - even that might be too high.

For distributions, I propose that you can start retirement whenever you are adequately funded. At that time, we will use actuarial tables to determine your annual percentage withdrawal. If you die early, you heirs receive this balance. I do like the old age insurance plan idea and maybe it can be funded in some innocuous way. It won't need as much because we're using actuarial tables.

Lord knows we need an improved medical plan system. What is your image of a "high deductible"? I had hoped for something like that instead of 2000 pages of complications.

Thank you for noticing my sad little thread. I had high hopes going in that we could discuss a real and fair and easy tax system that everybody could love.


I don't think that a transaction tax that low would raise enough revenue, and I could see some issues with in the implementation, and I don't particularly see why you would want to incentivise cash transactions over any other type of transaction.

The imagep income tax system replacement plan consists of just two income tax rate. The 0% rate, like we had for most of the existance of this country, for everyone making a salary that is within the norm. And a different rate, as low as possible as long as it results in a balanced budget, which would only be taxes on income that is in excess of the norm. I would suggest that $400k per year might be the tax bracket break just because thats about the top normal income for our most educated and skilled profession - the specialist MD. Any income above $400k could easily be called windfall income, and if anyone can't have a decent standard of living at $400k, then there is something wrong with them.

But I do like your mandatory savings account idea. It's very similar to what I would do as a replacement to social security. I wouldn't have the employer contributing at all though, that would just result in a reduction in stated compensation, and what would you do about people like me who have an income but don't have an employer? What I would do would be a straight 10% mandatory savings into a federal savings account that guarantees a rate of return of the inflation rate plus 1%, proceeds could be withdrawn at age 65 at the rate of no more than 5% of total savings per year. I would also have a very small federal sales tax which would be as small as possible and still allow full funding of an "old age insurance policy" for every american which would provide a decent income upon reaching age 85. This would allow people to actually be able to plan how much they need to save for retirement because they would then know then age at which time their savings could be exausted without them having to starve to death or otherwise end their own life. The biggest reason that even reasonable people don't have a retirement savings plan is because they can't do the math because they don't know when they will die - this would eliminate the need to know ones age of death in advance.

I also support a socialized high deductable health insurance plan to replace all current government healthcare spending programs, which would save about $2k per citizen, which would be rebated back to each citizen in the form of a deposit to their healthcare savings account and could be used by each individual to pay for their deductables.

I would eliminate all means tested gov giveaways, subsidies, tax credits, and the like.
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It would end banks. The first thing I think of is that I want to do only cash. No checks, no where, no how.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Not at all.

Do you think Mr. Romney would keep all his money in cash to avoid the expense of a less than 1% tax? I doubt it. The only people who live on cash are the utterly poor and they don't comprise much of banking and other financial transactions.

Obviously, you could choose to exclude yourself from the system to save a few dollar. But even then, you'll have to pay your bills to somebody by money order and they'll deposit it.



It would end banks. The first thing I think of is that I want to do only cash. No checks, no where, no how.
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Not at all.

Do you think Mr. Romney would keep all his money in cash to avoid the expense of a less than 1% tax? I doubt it. The only people who live on cash are the utterly poor and they don't comprise much of banking and other financial transactions.

Obviously, you could choose to exclude yourself from the system to save a few dollar. But even then, you'll have to pay your bills to somebody by money order and they'll deposit it.
Oh, they'd find a way. Cash trade institutions might pop up where actual cash moves from account to account and thus prevent a bank transaction.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If you think that people will handle that much cash to avoid such a minor fee, then what will your cash exchange charge? You'll need a lot of security and even then someday, somebody will deposit this in a bank, pay the tax, the bank will lend it, pay the tax etc.

I'm just going to guess that you make $1000.00 a week. About 20% will come out for your MSA and your other taxes. So, your check is for $800.00. Are you really going to live underground to save $8.00 (worst case). You tell me.



Oh, they'd find a way. Cash trade institutions might pop up where actual cash moves from account to account and thus prevent a bank transaction.
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
16,722
Reaction score
8,033
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
So I'm kind of worn out on the endless Romney - Obama bashing express. So, this topic is intended to be free of those 2names, no liberal conservative stuff, no political stuff at all. I hope some of you are capable of this.

The Specklebang for President for The Logical Party never really got enough attention for the 2012 race. So, you'll all have another chance in 2016. I've thought a lot about taxes and I've come up with a platform. Useful contributions will be appreciated.

Every item in the tax codes is erased. There are only 3 forms of "taxation" at the Federal level.

Every financial transaction that enters the system will pay a tax of 1/10 of a percent. That percentage is my starting point and I'll be happy to hear what you think.

So, you get a paycheck of $600 a week. You must deposit this in your bank OR you could just cash it. If you put it in the bank, you will pay $1.20. When your bank makes a loan of $600, there will be $1.20 tax. When somebody pays back the loan, there will be $1.20 tax. When Daddy Warbucks invest $1-million in a roast baby farm, he will transfer money from his account and pay a tax of $1,000.00. When he gets his monthly dividend of $10,000.00 he will pay a tax of $10.00. There is no tax on cash transactions UNLESS you deposit the money in a financial institution.

Money is always on the move - trillions and trillions of dollars flow from points A to B to C etc. The small percentage is painless.

This eliminates all personal and corporate taxes. There are just 2 more taxes. 10% of your income is placed in a Mandatory Savings account with an em,ployer match of 5%. The last thing is Specklecare which you will pay 5% and your employer will pay 5%. The last 2 will probably lose some money. They are a separate topic though.

Do you think this would raise enough revenue and do you think it's fair to everyone? Certainly "the rich" move around more money than "the poor" but the percentage is small and identical.

OK, I've tried to make an interesting thread. Anybody in? Take a break from bashing and lets reinvent America.




Specklebang For President 2016

I'm Specklebang and I approve of most things
Actually I think you will raise plenty of money with the tranaction tax, much more than you think. Over a Trillion dollors a day move thoughs our country, that calculates to 365 trillion dollors moving though our country in a given year. You will raise at .5% 1.825 trillion dollors. That is a serious chunk of change. Not only would we get native funds but you would capture funds coming though the US. Further the rate is so neglegable that to be honest very few if any would notice it. There would be very little evasion and the administrative overhead would be very little. You would actualy be able to reduce the IRS to a 25th of its current size. I would just bump the transaction tax to 1% and not worry about about the other two taxes.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually I think you will raise plenty of money with the tranaction tax, much more than you think. Over a Trillion dollors a day move thoughs our country, that calculates to 365 trillion dollors moving though our country in a given year. You will raise at .5% 1.825 trillion dollors. That is a serious chunk of change. Not only would we get native funds but you would capture funds coming though the US. Further the rate is so neglegable that to be honest very few if any would notice it. There would be very little evasion and the administrative overhead would be very little. You would actualy be able to reduce the IRS to a 25th of its current size. I would just bump the transaction tax to 1% and not worry about about the other two taxes.
I don't think that your math or facts are correct on this one.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Then help out. What is the velocity (?) of money? I think Pirate is correct and as long as the tax is so small, there won't be any evasion. It just won't be worth it. Any system like the current one is such a mess and so hard to monitor. That's why the top people get away with those low rates. Take out the complexity, reduce the burden, how can this not be better than thje horrrid present system? And what "facts" are you questioning?




I don't think that your math or facts are correct on this one.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I've asked Turtledude to look at this thread. You might honestly say that TD and Specklebang do not agree on taxation normally. But Speckle-Tax is designed for everyone to love.

The figures used are purely made up.

TD makes 1-million per year.

When he gets his annual $1M check, he deposits it and pays $10,000 (I'm using the 1% figure as the worst case scenario). He then sends a check for $1M to his broker, Big Bang Investments. They deposit his check and pay $10K which they might or might not charge him for. Lets assume they charge him, so he paid another $10K. Big Bang invests TDs million in Lucy Fur Cat Products and send them a check for $1M. Lucy Fur pays $10K to deposit this. Lucy Fur buys $1M of raw materials from Furball mines. Furball deposits the check and pays $10K. Business is great and TDs money doubles so they send him $2M which costs him $20K to deposit.

So, on his $1M income, and his $1M profit, he has paid out $40K. Another $20K has been paid out but not by him. So, his tax burden is $40K on a 2 million dollar income.

Is this not fair? Does it not make sense?

I look forward to TDs response and just in case anybody else has time to take a break from candidate bashing to explore this concept.
 

Federalist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
2,688
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I've always thought that one fair way to fund the federal government would be an assessment against the states, apportioned by their population. This would result in 50 tax bills delivered to 50 states. The entire IRS could be eliminated and replaced with a single clerk (or computer). The states would then pay their federal dues out of their treasuries. Simple, easy, and fair.
 

cannuck

Active member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
424
Reaction score
132
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I was once of the "one tax, flat tax" persuasion, but have moved on to believing that the US and Canada are in desperate need of only two main taxes (and a few user taxes): One, a consumption (VAT type) tax on all goods and services, much like we have in Canada and elsewhere, but large enough to cover the entire cost of a balanced budget (and adjusted in real time - i.e. during an elected officials term - to reflect annual budgets). No more hiding behind the future and passing the bills for political pork barrelling on to grandchildren. Why consumption you say? Well, in a word, China. One reason that they have all of our jobs and money is that we trade with them (and others) under the assumption of meeting some kind of developed nation standard for social, labour and environmental policies, but in fact they do not and never will - just say that they do. All domestic goods and services here must now pay a tax burden that attaches to every US (or Canadian) product - a cost that is absent from Chinese products. If we try to put a protective tarrif on such goods, we rightfully get attacked under the terms of WTO agreements based on the GATT. If we tax consumption, we GET that taxation paid not to the Chinese government, but to OURS. Levels the playing field somewhat and as you might notice, the Canadian GST, UK VAT, etc. are NEVER challenged under trade rules. That is because such a consumption tax is universal and thus fair - as it applies to everything sold or done.

The other tax is indeed an income tax. Call it capital gains tax, but in fact it should be called the "speculation tax" as this is the #1 cause of wealth redistribution problems. ALL speculative gain produces absolutely zero wealth, but merely takes money from the losers and gifts it to the winners who can manipulate the rules to benefit thus. I want 99% on day one, 95% after one month, and taper down to the income tax rate (in this case zero) over a very long period - say 20+ years. We need to get investment OUT of Wall Street scams and INTO Main Street productive use of capital. NOTE: dividend income would be taxed only once, and in this scenario at zero rate. Use the proceeds to reduce debt.

In the user tax regime: Federal sick care insurance should be funded by fat tax on foods relative to their health-related costs (note food is usually not subject to GST/VAT, nor should it be), tobacco, alcohol, etc. (sin taxes) in proportion to their contribution to sick care costs. Simple deal if you don't want to pay the tax: eat properly and avoid substance abuse. In my world, most OTC meds would fall under this tax, as would legalized recreational pharma.

Transportation taxes from fuel use, to fund transportation infrastructure - because that is what the fuel is burned to use.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,563
Reaction score
76,599
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
its interesting concepts you raise. I still prefer a consumption tax rather than one for merely transferring your own assets. I will have to think about this some more.

My views on taxes are such that I oppose any system that allows the many to be seduced by politicians who promise them more stuff by merely raising the taxes on a minority
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Thank you. I'll look forward to your thoughts. I believe Speckle-tax will be non-prejudicial. Of course, more money movement equals more tax but at such a moderate rate that it shouldn't make anyone feel they are over-burdened. Everyone will be paying that little percentage every day in the course of transactions.

its interesting concepts you raise. I still prefer a consumption tax rather than one for merely transferring your own assets. I will have to think about this some more.

My views on taxes are such that I oppose any system that allows the many to be seduced by politicians who promise them more stuff by merely raising the taxes on a minority
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
What if the states adopt the same insane system we have now? How did this fix anything?



I've always thought that one fair way to fund the federal government would be an assessment against the states, apportioned by their population. This would result in 50 tax bills delivered to 50 states. The entire IRS could be eliminated and replaced with a single clerk (or computer). The states would then pay their federal dues out of their treasuries. Simple, easy, and fair.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Speckle-tax is not a flat tax. It's far simpler than that.

While your concept is well explained, it's just a more complicated tax method and is directly aimed at the higher income people in one way and completely regressive in the other way. In short, nobody will like it albeit for 2 different reasons.

Speckle-tax is simple and fair and easy to collect 100% of without a huge government presence or agency.

I realize that many of you have tax alternatives of your own. However, you don't address the OP at all. What flaw do you find in Speckle-tax? I don't think there is one and the left and right can easily embrace this.



I was once of the "one tax, flat tax" persuasion, but have mov
ed on to believing that the US and Canada are in desperate need of only two main taxes (and a few user taxes): One, a consumption (VAT type) tax on all goods and services, much like we have in Canada and elsewhere, but large enough to cover the entire cost of a balanced budget (and adjusted in real time - i.e. during an elected officials term - to reflect annual budgets). No more hiding behind the future and passing the bills for political pork barrelling on to grandchildren. Why consumption you say? Well, in a word, China. One reason that they have all of our jobs and money is that we trade with them (and others) under the assumption of meeting some kind of developed nation standard for social, labour and environmental policies, but in fact they do not and never will - just say that they do. All domestic goods and services here must now pay a tax burden that attaches to every US (or Canadian) product - a cost that is absent from Chinese products. If we try to put a protective tarrif on such goods, we rightfully get attacked under the terms of WTO agreements based on the GATT. If we tax consumption, we GET that taxation paid not to the Chinese government, but to OURS. Levels the playing field somewhat and as you might notice, the Canadian GST, UK VAT, etc. are NEVER challenged under trade rules. That is because such a consumption tax is universal and thus fair - as it applies to everything sold or done.

The other tax is indeed an income tax. Call it capital gains tax, but in fact it should be called the "speculation tax" as this is the #1 cause of wealth redistribution problems. ALL speculative gain produces absolutely zero wealth, but merely takes money from the losers and gifts it to the winners who can manipulate the rules to benefit thus. I want 99% on day one, 95% after one month, and taper down to the income tax rate (in this case zero) over a very long period - say 20+ years. We need to get investment OUT of Wall Street scams and INTO Main Street productive use of capital. NOTE: dividend income would be taxed only once, and in this scenario at zero rate. Use the proceeds to reduce debt.

In the user tax regime: Federal sick care insurance should be funded by fat tax on foods relative to their health-related costs (note food is usually not subject to GST/VAT, nor should it be), tobacco, alcohol, etc. (sin taxes) in proportion to their contribution to sick care costs. Simple deal if you don't want to pay the tax: eat properly and avoid substance abuse. In my world, most OTC meds would fall under this tax, as would legalized recreational pharma.

Transportation taxes from fuel use, to fund transportation infrastructure - because that is what the fuel is burned to use.
 

Federalist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
2,688
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
What if the states adopt the same insane system we have now? How did this fix anything?
It is not my concern what system is used by other states.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
specklebang, all that would really do is to ensure that some of us never, ever utilized a bank, invested anything, took out a loan, etc....
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't think that a transaction tax that low would raise enough revenue, and I could see some issues with in the implementation, and I don't particularly see why you would want to incentivise cash transactions over any other type of transaction.

The imagep income tax system replacement plan consists of just two income tax rate. The 0% rate, like we had for most of the existance of this country, for everyone making a salary that is within the norm. And a different rate, as low as possible as long as it results in a balanced budget, which would only be taxes on income that is in excess of the norm. I would suggest that $400k per year might be the tax bracket break just because thats about the top normal income for our most educated and skilled profession - the specialist MD. Any income above $400k could easily be called windfall income, and if anyone can't have a decent standard of living at $400k, then there is something wrong with them.

But I do like your mandatory savings account idea. It's very similar to what I would do as a replacement to social security. I wouldn't have the employer contributing at all though, that would just result in a reduction in stated compensation, and what would you do about people like me who have an income but don't have an employer? What I would do would be a straight 10% mandatory savings into a federal savings account that guarantees a rate of return of the inflation rate plus 1%, proceeds could be withdrawn at age 65 at the rate of no more than 5% of total savings per year. I would also have a very small federal sales tax which would be as small as possible and still allow full funding of an "old age insurance policy" for every american which would provide a decent income upon reaching age 85. This would allow people to actually be able to plan how much they need to save for retirement because they would then know then age at which time their savings could be exausted without them having to starve to death or otherwise end their own life. The biggest reason that even reasonable people don't have a retirement savings plan is because they can't do the math because they don't know when they will die - this would eliminate the need to know ones age of death in advance.

I also support a socialized high deductable health insurance plan to replace all current government healthcare spending programs, which would save about $2k per citizen, which would be rebated back to each citizen in the form of a deposit to their healthcare savings account and could be used by each individual to pay for their deductables.

I would eliminate all means tested gov giveaways, subsidies, tax credits, and the like.
Something most people don't know, is that we have an even smaller transaction tax on stocks.
It's 0.0034% and it more than fully funds the SEC.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Sure, I get it Tigger. You would not try to earn any money because you would face that stunning tax rate of less than 1%. Why would you even accept a gift of $100,000.00 knowing that you will have to give up $1K and only have $99K left.

Why would you want to take a loan on a hose knowing that your bank will have to cough up 1% to issue that loan check?

1%. Draconian. Let's stick with our current tax rates.




specklebang, all that would really do is to ensure that some of us never, ever utilized a bank, invested anything, took out a loan, etc....
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Sure, I get it Tigger. You would not try to earn any money because you would face that stunning tax rate of less than 1%. Why would you even accept a gift of $100,000.00 knowing that you will have to give up $1K and only have $99K left. Why would you want to take a loan on a hose knowing that your bank will have to cough up 1% to issue that loan check?

1%. Draconian. Let's stick with our current tax rates.
I didn't say I wouldn't try to earn or spend money, just that I wouldn't use a bank or other financial institution to do the transactions related to it.

Personally, I am a proponent of a 10% Flat Tax with no deductions. This tax would be on all outside income.... that is all income from sources which have not already been taxed (salaries, benefits, stock options, etc...) but not on monies which have already been taxed (bank interest, investment property, stocks, etc....). There would be no ceiling and no floor for this Flat Tax.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Just because your have your own tax system, which basically reduces tax revenue to a fraction of what it is now, is no reason to dismiss the utter genius of Speckle-tax.
I just had an image of you borrowing $100K to buy a house and bringing cash to the closing. If the Title Company even accepted it, they would have to deposit it so, you will still pay that 1%.



I didn't say I wouldn't try to earn or spend money, just that I wouldn't use a bank or other financial institution to do the transactions related to it.

Personally, I am a proponent of a 10% Flat Tax with no deductions. This tax would be on all outside income.... that is all income from sources which have not already been taxed (salaries, benefits, stock options, etc...) but not on monies which have already been taxed (bank interest, investment property, stocks, etc....). There would be no ceiling and no floor for this Flat Tax.
 

Tigger

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,879
Reaction score
2,707
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Just because your have your own tax system, which basically reduces tax revenue to a fraction of what it is now, is no reason to dismiss the utter genius of Speckle-tax.
You know what the biggest issue I have with your system is? It's the same problem I have with the system now.... It is not nice and clean and out in the open. It hides stuff from the average taxpayer who is not a financial wizard. People would be blown away to see just how many transactions their money is really involved in over the course of a year, and just how quickly this added up to a very large amount of money out of their pockets.

I just had an image of you borrowing $100K to buy a house and bringing cash to the closing. If the Title Company even accepted it, they would have to deposit it so, you will still pay that 1%.
No, THEY would pay that 1%. Besides the fact that I have no interest in owning a home. I prefer to rent, thank you very much.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I think it's just the opposite of what you see. An absolutely open system.

Lets say you make $52K a year and you're paid by check. Deposit it, cost $520.00. Let's say you pay 100% of your bills by check. Cost $520.00. In the meantime, you earn another $20K on your investment in Solyndra bonds. Eventually, you decid to take out $20K of your money, income or principal. Tax $200.00. So your annual tax is $1240.00. How is this so complicated?

How many people are so extreme that they only use cash? Not many. If they do, OK, great, save the taxes. That money ill eventually wind up in a bank account and ther last owner of that money will pay the 1% tax.

So, what do you find so secretive about that?




You know what the biggest issue I have with your system is? It's the same problem I have with the system now.... It is not nice and clean and out in the open. It hides stuff from the average taxpayer who is not a financial wizard. People would be blown away to see just how many transactions their money is really involved in over the course of a year, and just how quickly this added up to a very large amount of money out of their pockets.



No, THEY would pay that 1%. Besides the fact that I have no interest in owning a home. I prefer to rent, thank you very much.
 
Top Bottom