Speckle-Tax - the final solution

[Evolvepeace]

It isn't any different. My point was exact that.... the fact that NO the company would NOT be paying the tax, the Consumer would, one way or another. Which is why I have no use for the system that the OP has come up with.

Okay, if I'm understanding this 1% "deposit" tax correctly, then each time a customer paid the company for a product 1% of the product's cost would be taxed once the company deposited their earnings in the bank (I'd assume it would automatically be deducted from the deposit total for electronic transactions). So, again, 1% of their deposited earnings would be taxed. Well, in Iowa we have a 6% sales tax already in place, which is a tax that the company pays to the government. But there are a slew of exceptions, vouchers, etc. So I don't see why companies would try and avoid the Speckle tax when it is substantially lower. Again, that's for here in Iowa, but my understanding is that a lot of states have similar laws and taxes.

So then, after this company collects its revenue and deposits it at a 1% taxed rate, it writes checks to its employees who then pay 1% of that check's total in taxes to deposit it. Now, whenever I look at my pay stubs I notice a fairly significant amount of it is taken already by the government for different programs. So 1% would not bother me in the least. From what I understand there would also be two other taxes associated with this system which would come to about me paying a total of 10% in taxes every paycheck I deposit. Please correct me if I misunderstood that. But, as of this moment, I would like this system of taxation. I don't see people being nearly as bothered by it as the current system.

I am concerned, due to not doing any number crunching, if this will be enough in taxes to pay for what our country needs or pull us out of debt. But I think the possibility is there, to be sure.

Thanks, Speckle! Keep it progressive, guys!

 

[TOlsenAK]

You miss one major thing.... The companies are NOT going to pay that tax. The CONSUMER will. That $99.99 item will now be $101.99

The Consumer already pays for a companies' tax. Tax goes up, company raises the price to make up the difference. If I'm selling a product for 100 dollars, and they raise the taxes I pay for the profit I make off my product, I lose money if I don't raise my price. The company I buy materials from also had that same tax increase, they raise their prices. I also have to compensate for this to keep the same income to maintain my buildings, pay my employees, advertising, and everything else to keep my business profitable.

Now my product's price has gone up, but your wages have stayed the same for the most part, now to afford me you have to possibly get a loan, banks love that, because they make money off lending money.

Edit: Only thing my brain isn't understanding is how it would work for someone depositing to an offshore account or business. Like if I ordered an item from Canada, and I lived in the US, since the business banks in Canada, their profit is deposited into a non-US bank. But then again, that business if it operated in the US would only pay that 1% tax, and not the other country's tax of 10-35%.

 

[TOlsenAK]

Okay, if I'm understanding this 1% "deposit" tax correctly, then each time a customer paid the company for a product 1% of the product's cost would be taxed once the company deposited their earnings in the bank (I'd assume it would automatically be deducted from the deposit total for electronic transactions). So, again, 1% of their deposited earnings would be taxed. Well, in Iowa we have a 6% sales tax already in place, which is a tax that the company pays to the government. But there are a slew of exceptions, vouchers, etc. So I don't see why companies would try and avoid the Speckle tax when it is substantially lower. Again, that's for here in Iowa, but my understanding is that a lot of states have similar laws and taxes.

So then, after this company collects its revenue and deposits it at a 1% taxed rate, it writes checks to its employees who then pay 1% of that check's total in taxes to deposit it. Now, whenever I look at my pay stubs I notice a fairly significant amount of it is taken already by the government for different programs. So 1% would not bother me in the least. From what I understand there would also be two other taxes associated with this system which would come to about me paying a total of 10% in taxes every paycheck I deposit. Please correct me if I misunderstood that. But, as of this moment, I would like this system of taxation. I don't see people being nearly as bothered by it as the current system.

I am concerned, due to not doing any number crunching, if this will be enough in taxes to pay for what our country needs or pull us out of debt. But I think the possibility is there, to be sure.

Thanks, Speckle! Keep it progressive, guys!

I can see the 1% deposit tax idea as also cutting spending, as the need for the IRS would almost go away completely. The effect of that would be less criminal charges or law enforcement being involved in tax evasion charges, less people in prison for tax related crime, less strain on our judicial system. Multiple federal programs that would require less funding to operate because the need is gone.

Less tax on businesses, and prices will go down because it's now cheaper for a business to operate in the US. If a company doesn't want to lower it's price, some other company will fill that need.

Being a devil's advicate to myself here,
Lets say Company X and Y who makes widgets decide not to change their prices. Lets say you work for that company, know the ins and outs of making widgets. You know that the cost of making widgets has dropped considerably, since there is only a 1% deposit tax on everything, and your company no longer pays upwards of 39% to the federal government, and between 0-12% to the state it operates in, but the price hasn't. People want widgets and a lot of them. Do you continue working at that job, or do you start a widget business of your own, selling them for less than company X or Y, who have agreed to keep their prices the same? You make the same widgets, but for a lower price. People will buy the lower priced widgets, and Company X and Y suddenly have competition.

 

[TOlsenAK]

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.

http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/

Lots of points from old qoutes with that link.

Then your federal government and banks are working hand in hand. There are a lot of people who think that a central bank is a bad thing, hell even Thomas Jefferson did. Plus how do you facilitate the trillions of transactions that happen every day? What system would make sure that my transaction of purchasing gas for my car from a BP gas station is getting taxed that 1%. What's to say that payment didn't just go straight to a bank in a different country?



“The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. ”

― Thomas Jefferson

Sorta seems like it's happening to a lot of people.

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.

Mandatory savings account with an employer match, I like the idea of keeping a savings account, but who's savings account is it? the employed? who controls it? what happens when the person who's mandatory savings account balance is needed for some unplanned for event? Why is the government telling me how much I have to save or where to invest my money?
It's telling people how to manage their finances, which I understand and see a lot of people who can't seem to do it. But this country wasn't founded to save everyone from themselves though, what people do with their earnings and how much they save up shouldn't be handled by the government at all.

 

[CalGun]

I have a hard time imagining 1/10th of 1% of all transactions will add up to the 3 trillion or so needed to balance our budget. My alternative:

1) A flat income tax of 10% of all wages on everyone with no deductions,
2) A second 10% added to an adjusted income over $100,000 with only those adjustments we cherish like retirement savings / donations.
a) Please note the previous taxes are flat income taxes on ALL forms of income not just wages, but inheritance, capital gains, dividends, etc
3) Replace corporate income taxes with a 5% tax on everything that contributes to GDP in the form of a sales or consumption tax
4) A 1% property tax on all assets held by an individual over $500,000. That would include real estate, stocks, business assets, etc.

I think with that we raise $3 trillion and can balance our budget. Also I think it soaks everyone quite equally - the masses pay more,
the rich pays more, and its far more fair.

 

[TOlsenAK]

Our budget also includes a lot of spending that we didn't do before. We have to cut spending as well on a lot of things that the government has started to be involved in that has no business being involved in.

 

[PirateMk1]

I have a hard time imagining 1/10th of 1% of all transactions will add up to the 3 trillion or so needed to balance our budget. My alternative:

1) A flat income tax of 10% of all wages on everyone with no deductions,
2) A second 10% added to an adjusted income over $100,000 with only those adjustments we cherish like retirement savings / donations.
a) Please note the previous taxes are flat income taxes on ALL forms of income not just wages, but inheritance, capital gains, dividends, etc
3) Replace corporate income taxes with a 5% tax on everything that contributes to GDP in the form of a sales or consumption tax
4) A 1% property tax on all assets held by an individual over $500,000. That would include real estate, stocks, business assets, etc.

I think with that we raise $3 trillion and can balance our budget. Also I think it soaks everyone quite equally - the masses pay more,
the rich pays more, and its far more fair.

Its a transaction tax not a profit tax theres a major difference. 2trillion dollors a day pass though our shores in the FOREX market alone. How many trilloins in Wall St.? Its actually a way to tax wall street effectively.

 

[specklebang]

This is exactly why a practical approach will never be used. Unless you have a complicated system, you can't carve out "cherished" things. So you NEED the complexity in order to grant favor and largesse to your favorite categories, whether those are the impoverished or the wealthy. Really, it's just ridiculous.

Now., we can look forward to a few thousand more pages of tax code complexities while taxes are raised yet exempted, lowered yet adjusted etc. etc.

only those adjustments we cherish like retirement savings / donations.

Its a transaction tax not a profit tax theres a major difference. 2trillion dollors a day pass though our shores in the FOREX market alone. How many trilloins in Wall St.? Its actually a way to tax wall street effectively.

 

[head of joaquin]

Our budget also includes a lot of spending that we didn't do before. We have to cut spending as well on a lot of things that the government has started to be involved in that has no business being involved in.

Why? Spending on public goods is good for everybody. It tends to increase productivity and hence standard of living. As long as it's funded by taxes on the rich and thus prevents them from misallocating capital into things like hedge funds.

 

[head of joaquin]

This is exactly why a practical approach will never be used. Unless you have a complicated system, you can't carve out "cherished" things. So you NEED the complexity in order to grant favor and largesse to your favorite categories, whether those are the impoverished or the wealthy. Really, it's just ridiculous.

Now., we can look forward to a few thousand more pages of tax code complexities while taxes are raised yet exempted, lowered yet adjusted etc. etc.

Economies are complex. Therefore tax policy is complex. The only major complexities in the IRC related to businesses and reflect economic reality.

99% of Americans can fill out the 1040 or 1040EZ in 30 minutes.

What problem are you trying to solve by demonizing complexity? Companies don't mind since they put the provisions in there to reflect economic reality. Why do you mind?

Would you like to discuss why the IRC provison involving partnerships are complex (some of the most complex), because I can tell you why they're there and without them partnerships don't function properly (we know because that's why they put them in there!)

 

[specklebang]

OK, tell me why. I'm somewhat financially literate so don't be afraid to use long words. I'll be very interested to read your explanation.

Economies are complex. Therefore tax policy is complex. The only major complexities in the IRC related to businesses and reflect economic reality.

99% of Americans can fill out the 1040 or 1040EZ in 30 minutes.

What problem are you trying to solve by demonizing complexity? Companies don't mind since they put the provisions in there to reflect economic reality. Why do you mind?

Would you like to discuss why the IRC provison involving partnerships are complex (some of the most complex), because I can tell you why they're there and without them partnerships don't function properly (we know because that's why they put them in there!)

 

[PirateMk1]

Economies are complex. Therefore tax policy is complex. The only major complexities in the IRC related to businesses and reflect economic reality.

99% of Americans can fill out the 1040 or 1040EZ in 30 minutes.

What problem are you trying to solve by demonizing complexity? Companies don't mind since they put the provisions in there to reflect economic reality. Why do you mind?

Would you like to discuss why the IRC provison involving partnerships are complex (some of the most complex), because I can tell you why they're there and without them partnerships don't function properly (we know because that's why they put them in there!)

I dont know exactly how long the tax code is and I doubt the IRS does as well, but I do know that if put into an 8.5x11 inch book with fine print and no spacing you could drop it on a mans head from 10ft and incapcitate them at the very least and more probably kill them. This is not hyperboly, this is literally kill a man with the tax code by dropping it on him from a very short distance. Thats just insane. I mind because I have to hire a bookeeper and an accountant which are not cheap. When I do it myself I miss a whole lot of deductions that I have no idea were to find them. There is NO universal interpretation of the code so much so that ask how ever many IRS agents about aspects of it and you get however many different answers. Then theres the fact it changes EVERY year and what you were doing one year you cant do, and another thing you didnt do you can now. There is NO expert in this country who can know the entire tax code. This tells me that it is TOO complex. You only fill out a 1040 or 1040ez if you are employed with no complications which more than a few people do. H&R Block, Hewitt Jackson et al dont do a burgeoning business every year for no reason you know.

If you think you are going to screw the rich people you got another thing coming, most of them didnt get that way because they are stupid. I know more than a few, and if you think you can steal from them easily without reprecussions, good luck with that. I aspire to be rich, cause I need lots money to do what I want to do.

Complexity does not mean sophisticated or good, it just means complex. Laws and regulations are like computer programs, smaller more compact and efficent is better with less bugs. The more goodies bells and whisles you add in the less reliable it becomes and more bug prone it is. The purpose of a tax is to fund the goverment, thats it or all it should be. Simple problem which in theory a simple solution should apply. I say in theory because it doesnt include the spending aspect of goverment which is another problem altogether. In this case to fund the goverment we need a broad based revenue collection that is transparent and known and collects revenue efficently with LITTLE cost, very little overhead,and little evasion and is not burdonsome. Specklebangs idea for a tranaction tax fits that bill, and in more inline with ORIGINAL constitutional intent to boot. I would love to get rid of the 16th amendment. It is a simple excise style tax. It taxes the transaction, nothing else. So if you want to minimize it dont conduct many transactions. It affects wealth people more in several ways one simply because their transactions are larger they pay more, two they generally do more than most people, three they generate wealth though transaction ie stocks bonds rental property ect. so they get hit a lot more than an hourly employee. Instead of gobbeling the tax in huge chunks the government can get it by skimming a little bit a bunch of times. And the nice thing about it is that the banks and licenced finacial institutions with be the ones collecting it as part of the deal for the licence. Which means very little overhead to get it. Since the tax is so small it doesnt pay to evade it. Volume. Thats how a lot of business make their money. Time the goverment did it that way too.

 

[specklebang]

I can't tell you how thrilled I am with youyr post that explains things better than I did.

Yes, it's so simple that it's immediately rejected because the more complicated, the more unfair and the more unfair, the more....? It's like S&M - get somebody to beat you and then when they stop you celebrate the absence of the beating.

I wish that the words "Fair Tax" hadn't been compromised by the fools who advocate a sales tax alternative. Speckle-tax is the ultimate "true fair tax" and I don't see why anyone would not prefer it except for the reasons above which are just ridiculous. The "Fair Tax" in which I pay exactly as much tax as a billionaire - how silly.

I did get an email about this and was told that Speckle-tax would interfere with computer based stock trading where they buy millions in stocks and sell them just seconds later. Yup, that would be the end of that, you'd have to buy stocks for the purpose of investing....isn't that the original concept?

One of the reasons America is failing is the inability to change anything in a positive way. Look at the "fiscal cliff" battle unfolding before us right now. Regardless of the political outcome, its going to be more of the same old song.

I dont know exactly how long the tax code is and I doubt the IRS does as well, but I do know that if put into an 8.5x11 inch book with fine print and no spacing you could drop it on a mans head from 10ft and incapcitate them at the very least and more probably kill them. This is not hyperboly, this is literally kill a man with the tax code by dropping it on him from a very short distance. Thats just insane. I mind because I have to hire a bookeeper and an accountant which are not cheap. When I do it myself I miss a whole lot of deductions that I have no idea were to find them. There is NO universal interpretation of the code so much so that ask how ever many IRS agents about aspects of it and you get however many different answers. Then theres the fact it changes EVERY year and what you were doing one year you cant do, and another thing you didnt do you can now. There is NO expert in this country who can know the entire tax code. This tells me that it is TOO complex. You only fill out a 1040 or 1040ez if you are employed with no complications which more than a few people do. H&R Block, Hewitt Jackson et al dont do a burgeoning business every year for no reason you know.

If you think you are going to screw the rich people you got another thing coming, most of them didnt get that way because they are stupid. I know more than a few, and if you think you can steal from them easily without reprecussions, good luck with that. I aspire to be rich, cause I need lots money to do what I want to do.

Complexity does not mean sophisticated or good, it just means complex. Laws and regulations are like computer programs, smaller more compact and efficent is better with less bugs. The more goodies bells and whisles you add in the less reliable it becomes and more bug prone it is. The purpose of a tax is to fund the goverment, thats it or all it should be. Simple problem which in theory a simple solution should apply. I say in theory because it doesnt include the spending aspect of goverment which is another problem altogether. In this case to fund the goverment we need a broad based revenue collection that is transparent and known and collects revenue efficently with LITTLE cost, very little overhead,and little evasion and is not burdonsome. Specklebangs idea for a tranaction tax fits that bill, and in more inline with ORIGINAL constitutional intent to boot. I would love to get rid of the 16th amendment. It is a simple excise style tax. It taxes the transaction, nothing else. So if you want to minimize it dont conduct many transactions. It affects wealth people more in several ways one simply because their transactions are larger they pay more, two they generally do more than most people, three they generate wealth though transaction ie stocks bonds rental property ect. so they get hit a lot more than an hourly employee. Instead of gobbeling the tax in huge chunks the government can get it by skimming a little bit a bunch of times. And the nice thing about it is that the banks and licenced finacial institutions with be the ones collecting it as part of the deal for the licence. Which means very little overhead to get it. Since the tax is so small it doesnt pay to evade it. Volume. Thats how a lot of business make their money. Time the goverment did it that way too.

 

[specklebang]

Got real quiet in here. Typical of the super-partisan poster. Even this topic, completely non-partisan, must be disagreed with because of your Obama-Love. That's really ridiculous. Please, please explain the true purpose of complexity. I'lll hold my breath so don't take too long or you'll be guilty of murder!

OK, tell me why. I'm somewhat financially literate so don't be afraid to use long words. I'll be very interested to read your explanation.

Originally Posted by head of joaquin
Economies are complex. Therefore tax policy is complex. The only major complexities in the IRC related to businesses and reflect economic reality.

99% of Americans can fill out the 1040 or 1040EZ in 30 minutes.

What problem are you trying to solve by demonizing complexity? Companies don't mind since they put the provisions in there to reflect economic reality. Why do you mind?

Would you like to discuss why the IRC provison involving partnerships are complex (some of the most complex), because I can tell you why they're there and without them partnerships don't function properly (we know because that's why they put them in there!)

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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

Interesting idea. If I were you I'd get rid of the "final solution" tagline; it's been associated with some pretty negative things in history. Cant remember where....

 

[PirateMk1]

I can't tell you how thrilled I am with youyr post that explains things better than I did.

Yes, it's so simple that it's immediately rejected because the more complicated, the more unfair and the more unfair, the more....? It's like S&M - get somebody to beat you and then when they stop you celebrate the absence of the beating.

I wish that the words "Fair Tax" hadn't been compromised by the fools who advocate a sales tax alternative. Speckle-tax is the ultimate "true fair tax" and I don't see why anyone would not prefer it except for the reasons above which are just ridiculous. The "Fair Tax" in which I pay exactly as much tax as a billionaire - how silly.

I did get an email about this and was told that Speckle-tax would interfere with computer based stock trading where they buy millions in stocks and sell them just seconds later. Yup, that would be the end of that, you'd have to buy stocks for the purpose of investing....isn't that the original concept?

One of the reasons America is failing is the inability to change anything in a positive way. Look at the "fiscal cliff" battle unfolding before us right now. Regardless of the political outcome, its going to be more of the same old song.

Thanks sir appreaciate your kind words. As far computer based trading your your emailer was right to a degree, if would effect those traders or scalpers as I call em, they would have to be more selective on their trades certainly though that style of trading will not go completely away whenever they think it can be profitable to so. Position traders will become more invogue again if your tax was to come to fruition. Position Trading is different from the day traders methology as a day trader rarely if ever holds a position over night, while position trader will hold a position for far longer up to a year after which it becomes investing. Which is one of the reasons capitols gains differintiated the way it is with the lower rate coming into effect after holding a position more than a year.

Speckletax works for me, or if you insist on calling it something else Transaction tax is what its called so that works to. The europeans were looking to add this tax into the mix of taxes they got now. I am glad I dont live in Europe. Anywho cheers.

 

[cpwill]

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.

....and people who prefer to use cash. Like myself.

And Romney would absolutely keep lots of cash out. It would be cheaper to hire guards. In fact, there would probably be "cash holding" places that hire their own guards, and charge less than the government rates. You would simply create a shadow-banking system designed to avoid your tax.

 

[specklebang]

Think about this a little more. You are in te military. They won't pay you in cash (I assume). You'll take your money at a bank. Let me assume you make $1,000.00 a week. That's going to cost you a whopping $10.00. How much evasion would you bew willing to go for to save $10.00? Not muchg I bet.

As for the Romneys, in order to make his household payroll is probably about $100K a week. Pilots, guards, drivers etc. Where will he get the $100K? From a bank I assume and it will cost him an extra $1K. Of course he won't pay his staff in cash. For one thing, there is still a form of FICA and Medicare (although I hope that during my presidency they'll be replace with simpler, more logical systems) so do you imagine Mitt with his cash bundles, peeling off the FICA etc. I seriously doubt that.

The "shadow economy" will be no different than now. Sure, I buy a pond of weed from Rasta Charlie ad I sell ounces to my neighborhood. Sure, I'm all cash. So what? I'm not REQUIRED to use the banks and I'm too poor to need them/. So, I won't pay ant transaction tax. But, I betcha that CP Will and Mitt Romney will.

The whole point is that the tax is small and UNAVOIDABLE. Your imaginary "cash house" would cost more to build and operate than any tax savings. Only the poorest among us will avoid (legally) Speckle-tax. So what?

....and people who prefer to use cash. Like myself.

And Romney would absolutely keep lots of cash out. It would be cheaper to hire guards. In fact, there would probably be "cash holding" places that hire their own guards, and charge less than the government rates. You would simply create a shadow-banking system designed to avoid your tax.

 

[specklebang]

I brought this back to life because somewhere out there, the voice of Specklebang was heard.

Eleven eurozone states to introduce Tobin tax on stock trades - Jan. 22, 2013

Of course, they weren't nice enough to call it Speckle-Tax so they ripped me off and called it Tobin-tax.

And before you start shrieking "no new taxes", this was to be in lieu of income taxes not in addition to. Or at least partially in lieu of income taxes. Or something like that.

 

[head of joaquin]

1. Generally what you tax you get less of (or less reporting of), so the Speckel tax would presumably reduce financial transactions and hence the velocity of money. That's a bad thing.

2. More troubling is the enforcement issue. Income tax is relatively easy to enforce because you have two parties with opposing interests reporting. The employer/payor wants a deduction, so they want to report the full amount paid. The employee/payee wants to avoid the tax so they want to report less than the full amount. The W-2, K-1 or 1099 that must be filed keeps everybody honest. The employer/payor can't report more (or the employee will know it) and the employee can't declare less (because the employer filed a form.

With transactions there is no competing interest. Both parties have an incentive to underreport the transactions, since that leaves more money on the table for both. So, you must expect them to do so, increasing fraud.

So I'm no quite sure how the Eurozone plans on enforcing this. And the last thing the Eurozone needs is slower velocity. However they have pretty bright economists so they must have made the calculations.

 

[PirateMk1]

1. Generally what you tax you get less of (or less reporting of), so the Speckel tax would presumably reduce financial transactions and hence the velocity of money. That's a bad thing.

2. More troubling is the enforcement issue. Income tax is relatively easy to enforce because you have two parties with opposing interests reporting. The employer/payor wants a deduction, so they want to report the full amount paid. The employee/payee wants to avoid the tax so they want to report less than the full amount. The W-2, K-1 or 1099 that must be filed keeps everybody honest. The employer/payor can't report more (or the employee will know it) and the employee can't declare less (because the employer filed a form.

With transactions there is no competing interest. Both parties have an incentive to underreport the transactions, since that leaves more money on the table for both. So, you must expect them to do so, increasing fraud.

So I'm no quite sure how the Eurozone plans on enforcing this. And the last thing the Eurozone needs is slower velocity. However they have pretty bright economists so they must have made the calculations.

You are right about putting a drag on the velocity of money. But then again if you look at taxes of any kind they all reduce the velocity of money. The eurozone is shooting themselves in the foot by impliminting this tax without first eliminating another tax inorder to neutralize the effect of drag. Income taxes are actually a regressive form of tax as the tax generated comes directly out of the wages and income of people and business. The regressive part comes from the way the income tax is applied these enties currently. Business are taxed after they have spent their money people before. This means a business has much more control over their overall tax bite than a person would though spending and deductions. This scews the tax greatly in favor of business. A transactional tax scews the other way as business spends much more money then people do generally speaking. In either case the tax will be passed down from the business to the customer. The primary benifit of a transaction tax is stability and predictabitlity which are VERY important for investing.

 

[CalGun]

IDK if your transfer tax will raise enough money. An 8% sales tax would raise $1.2 trillion if there were no exceptions. It would be keen to see what your transfer tax would collect.

As I understand your payroll taxes are upwards of 25%. Is that accurate? 15 by me and 10 by an employer? What about interest, dividends, and rents - even capital gains?

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

 

[specklebang]

Thank you for coming here CalGun. I'll make Presidential material out of you yet

Lets quickly clarify payroll taxes. There are just 2 taxes. I'll call one of the Social Security but really it's what I call the MSA (Mandatory Savings Account) which is a individualized version and can be discussed in detail in a different post. 10% from worker, 5% match from employer. This goes in your account and is used to buy different investments as you reach different levels. Initially, you get T-Bills of whatever length is practical. For now, lets say these are 30 year T-Bills for a younger worker.

Next is a modified form of Medicare for which you pay 5% and the employer pay 5%. This is still a work in progress but 10% should do the job they are doing with 3.8% right now.

Now, I don't know the total movement of money so the percentage I chose for now might be too low. It might be .10% or as much as 1.5%. I think anything at 2% or below will be more than enough but we'll explore this more later. Money moves around constantly. Everyone "moves" money, whether just depositing a paycheck or buying, selling anything at all. The p[ary depositing the money pays the transaction tax. The higher your income, the more likely you are to move more volume. If you make $1M is sales you'll deposit this and pay the $1K (I'm using 1% for now) as you deposit this. Lets say your expenses are $500K so you issue chcks for $500K to your suppliers, workers, whatever. They deposit these checks and pay their share of the $500 taxes. In turn, they'll spend say $400K (saving themselves $100K) and whomever they spend this with will once again pay their 1% of that.

So, your annual tax return is simply your SS and Medicare portions. All other taxes have already been paid. You still have to deal with your state taxes, gas taxes, state sales raxes, phone taxes and all the other taxes everyone pays no matter how regressive those are. All we're doing is eliminating the FIT and all the complexities associated wit that. Everyone will pay in this way and the more money you handle means the more share you pay. It's very fair and balanced and I'm pretty sure the velocity of all these trillions will generate enough revenues.

IDK if your transfer tax will raise enough money. An 8% sales tax would raise $1.2 trillion if there were no exceptions. It would be keen to see what your transfer tax would collect.

As I understand your payroll taxes are upwards of 25%. Is that accurate? 15 by me and 10 by an employer? What about interest, dividends, and rents - even capital gains?

 

[Tigger]

Thank you for coming here CalGun. I'll make Presidential material out of you yet

Lets quickly clarify payroll taxes. There are just 2 taxes. I'll call one of the Social Security but really it's what I call the MSA (Mandatory Savings Account) which is a individualized version and can be discussed in detail in a different post. 10% from worker, 5% match from employer. This goes in your account and is used to buy different investments as you reach different levels. Initially, you get T-Bills of whatever length is practical. For now, lets say these are 30 year T-Bills for a younger worker.

Next is a modified form of Medicare for which you pay 5% and the employer pay 5%. This is still a work in progress but 10% should do the job they are doing with 3.8% right now.

Now, I don't know the total movement of money so the percentage I chose for now might be too low. It might be .10% or as much as 1.5%. I think anything at 2% or below will be more than enough but we'll explore this more later. Money moves around constantly. Everyone "moves" money, whether just depositing a paycheck or buying, selling anything at all. The p[ary depositing the money pays the transaction tax. The higher your income, the more likely you are to move more volume. If you make $1M is sales you'll deposit this and pay the $1K (I'm using 1% for now) as you deposit this. Lets say your expenses are $500K so you issue chcks for $500K to your suppliers, workers, whatever. They deposit these checks and pay their share of the $500 taxes. In turn, they'll spend say $400K (saving themselves $100K) and whomever they spend this with will once again pay their 1% of that.

So, your annual tax return is simply your SS and Medicare portions. All other taxes have already been paid. You still have to deal with your state taxes, gas taxes, state sales raxes, phone taxes and all the other taxes everyone pays no matter how regressive those are. All we're doing is eliminating the FIT and all the complexities associated wit that. Everyone will pay in this way and the more money you handle means the more share you pay. It's very fair and balanced and I'm pretty sure the velocity of all these trillions will generate enough revenues.

The largest problem with this whole idea is that you have people like ME who will never accept the idea that the Government should be in charge of my retirement or healtcare. It is not the Government's job to make sure I have money saved for retirement. It isn't their job to ensure that I have healthcare.

 

[specklebang]

Tigger. With all due respect, if I used you as a basis for anything, nothing would happen anytime or anywhere. You're against everything. You are fairly unique in your negativity and I treat you respectfully but I don't try to see you as a regular perspective.

The largest problem with this whole idea is that you have people like ME who will never accept the idea that the Government should be in charge of my retirement or healtcare. It is not the Government's job to make sure I have money saved for retirement. It isn't their job to ensure that I have healthcare.