Democrat proposes 1.00% Tax on ATM and bank withdrawals.
- Thread starter invisible777
- Start date
All they have to do is blame the need for the tax increase on the "policies of the past." The economic meltdown didnt happen under Obama. He is merely our savior who has to take away our freedoms and disposable income for the greater good of the Country...er Democrat party.
All he has to do is say "This is Bush's fault." Then, the media and brain dead supporters will follow in line bashing Bush and Republicans for making Obama and the dems have to raise taxes. Meanwhile, the Dems and Obama will get a pass.
All he has to do is say "This is Bush's fault." Then, the media and brain dead supporters will follow in line bashing Bush and Republicans for making Obama and the dems have to raise taxes. Meanwhile, the Dems and Obama will get a pass.
Anything is better than the bullshit progressive socialist system we have in place now. I'm all for some kind of flat tax, especially one based on consumption rather than income.
How is this a tax on "ATM and bank withdrawals"? Did you read your own quote?
Just sounds like VAT-lite. Except it doesn't replace the shitty taxes currently places but is lumped in on top of them.
Just sounds like VAT-lite. Except it doesn't replace the shitty taxes currently places but is lumped in on top of them.
Did you?
"...$300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. "
And yes, VAT-like no doubt.
I am a Republican but some of the deficit problems should be placed on Bush. However, hindsight is always 20/20 when it comes to any decision, especially the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Even with Bush's tax cuts for the rich, without the wars, we would not have a deficit at all or it would be miniscule. When Bush made those cuts, we have long term projections that showed that they would be viable. People act as though he made rash decisions with no evidence whatsoever. Should he have maybe waited and built up more of a surplus? Of course. But then he would have had critics saying the government has too much money.
It is the same with the war. We just got bombed as the nation was pissed. We wanted to get anyone who was responsible. If he sat on his hands and we got attacked again, would we be worried about the money we saved? Of course not. Bush would have been crucified for not doing anything about it.
So yes, we need to do something and it probably means a tax increase. We can't live in fear though and never act on what we have in front of us. Bush didn't know we needed to defend ourselves the way we have; he just acted on the info he had.
Also, this is a horrible way to go about it. Double taxation is never a popular thing.
Even with Bush's tax cuts for the rich, without the wars, we would not have a deficit at all or it would be miniscule. When Bush made those cuts, we have long term projections that showed that they would be viable. People act as though he made rash decisions with no evidence whatsoever. Should he have maybe waited and built up more of a surplus? Of course. But then he would have had critics saying the government has too much money.
It is the same with the war. We just got bombed as the nation was pissed. We wanted to get anyone who was responsible. If he sat on his hands and we got attacked again, would we be worried about the money we saved? Of course not. Bush would have been crucified for not doing anything about it.
So yes, we need to do something and it probably means a tax increase. We can't live in fear though and never act on what we have in front of us. Bush didn't know we needed to defend ourselves the way we have; he just acted on the info he had.
Also, this is a horrible way to go about it. Double taxation is never a popular thing.
^^^ LOL getting rid of a tax LOL
Taxes, even temporary ones seem to hang around. In fact, we are going to get new taxes at the end of the year when the tax cuts Bush passed expire. People keep saying those tax cuts were only for the rich. At the time, I was making 30K a year, and my paycheck increased by $80 a month. Not much, but it was a tax cut for me...the non rich.
Taxes, even temporary ones seem to hang around. In fact, we are going to get new taxes at the end of the year when the tax cuts Bush passed expire. People keep saying those tax cuts were only for the rich. At the time, I was making 30K a year, and my paycheck increased by $80 a month. Not much, but it was a tax cut for me...the non rich.
.
We would be much better off if the government stopped trying to spend every dollar it can get near, or borrow, than raise taxes.
We have a spending problem, not a taxation problem.
We have a spending problem, not a taxation problem.
I have a few questions for you...
1. Why do you feel this particular tax is bad?
2. Do you feel taxation on income/property/capital gains/fuel/tanning/smokes/junk food/etc. are any better?
3. If you think "some" taxes are fine, how do you define "some"? Who should be allowed to define "some" for you?
4. This is a long one...
The reason markets exist is because producers are willing to step forward and provide goods and services that consumers want to buy. Moreover, they do so at prices consumers are willing to pay. This occurs through voluntary exchanges (e.g. I'll give you $20 for a haircut, but not $20.01. Deal?).
All taxes represent involuntary exchange. That is, money is forcibly ripped away from consumers and pushed into areas for which there is inadequate market demand. I realize this is obvious to most of you, but it is a point worth underscoring. If you agree that taxation is necessary because consumers would otherwise choose to allocate their limited dollars elsewhere, then you must also agree that taxation retards a market economy. If the latter is true, it follows that consumers are less able to satisfy their wants. They are thus worse off. Society is thus less prosperous.
Given this, how do you logically justify any form of taxation?
I'm asking these questions because there seems to be a lot of anger regarding taxes, but very little consistency with regard to the reasons. It is one thing to say, "Those thieves are taking way too much in taxes!" It is another thing entirely to grasp the economic devastation and wealth destruction that all forms of taxation cause.
1. Why do you feel this particular tax is bad?
2. Do you feel taxation on income/property/capital gains/fuel/tanning/smokes/junk food/etc. are any better?
3. If you think "some" taxes are fine, how do you define "some"? Who should be allowed to define "some" for you?
4. This is a long one...
The reason markets exist is because producers are willing to step forward and provide goods and services that consumers want to buy. Moreover, they do so at prices consumers are willing to pay. This occurs through voluntary exchanges (e.g. I'll give you $20 for a haircut, but not $20.01. Deal?).
All taxes represent involuntary exchange. That is, money is forcibly ripped away from consumers and pushed into areas for which there is inadequate market demand. I realize this is obvious to most of you, but it is a point worth underscoring. If you agree that taxation is necessary because consumers would otherwise choose to allocate their limited dollars elsewhere, then you must also agree that taxation retards a market economy. If the latter is true, it follows that consumers are less able to satisfy their wants. They are thus worse off. Society is thus less prosperous.
Given this, how do you logically justify any form of taxation?
I'm asking these questions because there seems to be a lot of anger regarding taxes, but very little consistency with regard to the reasons. It is one thing to say, "Those thieves are taking way too much in taxes!" It is another thing entirely to grasp the economic devastation and wealth destruction that all forms of taxation cause.
1. Why do you feel this particular tax is bad? -
I personally feel this tax is bad because our government doesn't allocate the fucking money properly. All this government knows how to do is creat bloated social programs and unneeded bureaucracy which end up going into the billions in red thus needing new taxes.
2. Do you feel taxation on income/property/capital gains/fuel/tanning/smokes/junk food/etc. are any better?
I believe in a flat tax across everything. I hope one day the IRS will be abolished. That way even the illegals and people working under the table jobs can pay in.
3. If you think "some" taxes are fine, how do you define "some"? Who should be allowed to define "some" for you?
It's obvious we need some taxes to enjoy various different things that pamper the citizens like parks, police, fire, military, roads and other misc things we now depend on. What we don't need is taxation with a bunch of fucking moronic politicians blowing wads of money on complete and utter bullshit that doesn't benefit the people.
^ This.
Furthermore, the government is barely funded by our taxes. It has been funded through inflation/printing for years. Taxes are primarily for show to keep the sheep happy and divert their attention away from what's really going on:
"Fiat money is the means by which governments obtain instant purchasing power without taxation." - G. Edward Griffin; The Creature From Jekyll Island
Moreover, the IRS is a private corporation. The whole American tax system is a complete scam/business for foreign interests. It has nothing to do with helping the American people.
Sounds like VAT to me which I would support but not in addition to extremely high taxes.
I think it's a pretty solid plan but I doubt it would ever get passed.
Here's the problem we face with spending though:
Social security, military, welfare, medicare, and SCHIP spending account for about 45% of the budget. If you seriously want to reduce the deficit within the next decade without raising taxes then you either need to completely eliminate 2 of these programs or bring them all down by an average of 50%. Obviously neither one of those scenarios is likely, not because big government is in the way, it's the voters fault. Any politician who vows to eliminate/severely reduce any of those 5 programs pretty much has no chance of winning at the senate or presidential level which is where the roadblocks are.
Social security, military, welfare, medicare, and SCHIP spending account for about 45% of the budget. If you seriously want to reduce the deficit within the next decade without raising taxes then you either need to completely eliminate 2 of these programs or bring them all down by an average of 50%. Obviously neither one of those scenarios is likely, not because big government is in the way, it's the voters fault. Any politician who vows to eliminate/severely reduce any of those 5 programs pretty much has no chance of winning at the senate or presidential level which is where the roadblocks are.