What do you mean by 'fantasy person'?

Lamplighter
 

In post #211, you asked some questions…in post #214, I answered (assuming you'd respond).

Care to continue the conversation?

Yes, I should have replied, but the thread sort of drifted and I got lazy.

OK, I just found a second rope, for me - please be gentle

I realize you don't like others interpreting your posts,
but this is what I think you've said
For discussion, assume a 10% transaction tax rate
- here are a few examples of long range consequences.

(A) Unending uber-iinflation:
All consumer goods accumulate multiple (10%) increments of extra costs
----------farmer ->co-op->x*(transporters->wholesalers)->
.........................................y*(transporters->distributers)->retailer->buyer

(B) Loss of public health (i.e., "living is regressive")
No payroll taxes = no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid
----------Hospitals/doctors loose Medicare and Medicaid - become private/insurance pay only
----------Hospitals/doctors refuse / stop services for patients with inadequate resources
----------Individuals must cover full costs of lifelong medical and emergency services
----------Each individual must accumulate adequate wealth for pay-as-you-go till death

(C) Business grinds to a halt
No capital gains taxes = Both "buy" and "sell" transactions are taxed at full current value
e.g., if Stock/bond value = $100 / share
----------Stocks must appreciate in value at least 11% before buyer "breaks even"
------------Buyer pays 10% on current stock value (value is now $90)
------------Buyer pays 10% on dividends over time
------------Buyer (now Seller) pays 10% on increased value of stock ($10)
------------Or, Buyer (now Seller) pays 10% on decreased value of stock, ($9)

----------Corporate bonds lose 10% value when issued and/or redeemed
----------Corporate bonds must pay more than $10 interest for buyer to "break even"

(D) Real Estate becomes unaffordable
Real Estate transactions are taxed by each subunit level at full value of property
---------- Seller pays 10% tax on current value of property
---------- Seller's Realtor adds extra 10% on current value of property
---------- Seller pays off mortgage and bank assesses an extra 10% on current balance

---------- Buyers appraiser bills extra 10% of current value of property
---------- Title insurance bills extra 10% of current value of property
---------- Mortgage insurance bills extra 10% of current value of property
---------- Bank issues mortgage with extra 10% of current balance or loan
---------- Buyers Realtor pays 10% of current value of property

Would such effects of a ubiquitous transaction tax be OK by you ?

OK, I admit to holding an overwhelming bias against Fox News, and
unless there's a cataclysmic event, I'll not be voting the Republican ticket.

Having said that, can someone explain why Fox News is carrying
such a critical article on Herman Cain's 999 plan
Is Fox supporting Romney or some other Republican"

Fox News
Published October 18, 2011
| Associated Press
Study: Cain Tax Plan Raises Taxes on 84 Percent
.
I know the Brookings Institute is a relatively liberal think-tank and the Urban Institute probably is also.
I'm just suspicious and or befuddled when such an article is published by Fox.

Grover Norquist came out against 999, so it's open season on it for Fox.

HM, Thanks for putting me onto this
I was incredulous on first reading of your post, it was too much to believe.
But now I think you are right. I found this article...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2332...-tapeworms.htm
By Maggie Astor | October 18, 2011 10:49 AM EDT

Grover Norquist: Herman Cain's '9-9-9' Plan is Like 'Having Tapeworms'
.
It's almost delicious watching the Republican Party eat their own children.
.

History of the Income Tax in the United States
 

continued here
Pretty cool read

And then things began to change...

By the beginning of the 19th century, government policy on both sides of the Atlantic began to change,
reflecting the growing popularity of the proposition that corporations were riding the economic wave of the future.

In 1819, the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations a plethora of rights
they had not previously recognized or enjoyed.[13]
Corporate charters were deemed "inviolable",
and not subject to arbitrary amendment or abolition by state governments.[14]
The Corporation as a whole was labeled an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.[15]

@Wikipedia


Today, corporations are people. I know this because Mitt said so.

Hmm 1819. That's when the UK was enacting all sorts of anti-worker legislation and actively against perquisites and 'traditional' artisanal rights.

The pendulum was swinging during this period away from workers and towards employers in several important ways.

Because he's black, of course. :rolleyes:

OMFG! A repubican initiated the income tax in the US! God damn them to hell, those dirty damn tax creators!

"Would such effects of a ubiquitous transaction tax be OK by you?"

Lamp, I get befuzzled when I look at graphs and charts and bulleted lists and whatnot...also: big blocks of text 'loop de loop' me (I imagine I have all manner of neurological dysfunction I could blame this on).

Gimme a little time and I'll respond...just need a little time to 'see' the information first (in my head).

Patience, please... ;)

Lamp, I like the conciseness of your summation of my point of purchase tax.

I reproduce it here with minor tweaking and one question.

-----

Henry Quirk's point of purchase tax is "transaction-based", and replaces all other forms of taxation and revenue, with no exemptions or loopholes.

Taxation is simple, all inclusive, at equal rates on all types of transactions, and not progressive:

No income tax
No capital gains tax
No payroll tax
No special taxes

Each transaction tax is based on the current value of the item or service being sold.

New and used items, food, rent, utilities are taxed on the current value of the item or service.

All business-to-business transactions are taxed on the current value of the item or service.

All services are taxed on the current value of the service.

-----

"Each subunit of a compound transaction is taxed on the full value of the item"

Why? Seems to me every 'sub-unit' is still integral to the overall transaction, so, there would only be one tax on the aggregated costs.

#

"All consumer goods accumulate multiple (10%) increments of extra costs."

Sure. No different, I think, than the accumulated costs of regulation and the accumulated costs for materials, labor, machinery, etc. (without, of course, any other, current, taxes added to the mix).

Don't see why it would lead to "uber-inflation".

#

"no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid"

Not in the present forms, no.

All three should be voluntary (gov-sponsored with funds drawn from a pooled account)...one should only draw out what one puts in (though in a voluntary version, whatever the participants agree to is fine by me)...no one should pay for another (unless, again, as a function of a voluntary system, he or she agrees to do just that).

#

"Both "buy" and "sell" transactions are taxed at full current value"

I may be misunderstanding you here, but, on the chance I'm not: No, as a point of purchase tax, the purchaser of the item or service pays the tax...only 'buy' is taxed.

As I say: I may be misunderstanding you here.

In any event: can't see how the point of purchase tax would encourage stagnation of business. What most certainly would put the brakes on business (especially those without any real product or service) is the loss of loophole, exemption, and exception.

#

"Real Estate transactions are taxed by each subunit level at full value of property"

Sure. Each sub-unit (in this case) is a legit and independent transaction, a tax absorbed by the purchaser and passed along to the buyer, but never at 'full value'. 'Current Value' is the baseline. And with 'property' especially, current value is dependent on a variety of factors largely of the control of buyers and sellers.

What's prime today may be ghetto ten years down the road.

#

"Would such effects of a ubiquitous transaction tax be OK by you?"

Since I don't see the effects in the same dire light as you, yeah, I'm okay with the effects.

Fundamentally: prices WOULD go up on just about everything, gov-revenue WOULD go down, and every one takes a hit.

A few of the long-term benefits: more folks will self-rely ('cause gov can't take care of you no more!); fewer businesses (based solely on speculation) will grow to gargantuan size; fewer folks (here and abroad) will achieve uber-rich status, but more will 'make it'; folks will reassess what is a 'need' (a necessity) and what is a 'want' (a scratch to be itched).

Not seeing the downside to the downsize... ;)

Again (because there may be some confusion about what and who is taxed under my point of purchase tax): the purchaser pays the tax (not the seller); the tax is on product (a lamp, for example) and service (the service a bank provides, for example, in servicing one's finances, not on the amount itself).

The lamp example is clear but the banking one perhaps not so much.

At ACR bank, checking/savings accounts are offered. Joe deposits 1 million to his account while Jack deposits 500. Both men will pay the exact same tax because they pay it on the account service (which is perhaps a monthly charge), not the amount in the account.

Each time either man draws from his account (if the bank charges for such things) there is a tax paid, not on the amount drawn but only on the service.

If the bank, as Joe's proxy, invests some of Joe's money, Joe will pay a tax on the investment service *fee itself, not on money being risked.




*Now, the fee itself may be tied to the amount being risked, but that's the sphere of 'buyer beware' and not taxation.

HQ, I'll send you a PM because my reply was getting too long.

But please distinguish between the selling of a $10 lamp and
the selling of a $10,000,000 bond, each with a 10% transaction tax
based on their "full value"

Likewise, when that $10M bond is divided among investors,
how the underwriter (bank) could resell $1K subunits to investors
without applying a 10% transaction tax to each, or a 10% devaluation,
based on bond's full subunit value.

"HQ, I'll send you a PM because my reply was getting too long."

Okay.

#

"But please distinguish between the selling of a $10 lamp and the selling of a $10,000,000 bond, each with a 10% transaction tax based on their "full value".

Not much to distinguish: If I buy a ten dollar lamp, I pay the tax on the current value of the lamp (10 today, maybe only 7 & half tomorrow).

If I buy a 10 million bond, I pay the tax on the current value of the bond (always 10 million, but with the value of each dollar going up and down as 'forces' dictate).

#

"when that $10M bond is divided among investors, how (can) the underwriter (bank) resell $1K subunits to investors without applying a 10% transaction tax to each, or a 10% devaluation, based on bond's full subunit value?

He can't (this is your "compound transaction", yes?) and in your question I see where my misunderstanding was. I don't view the 1 thousand dollar allotments as sub-units but as independent transactions, with the purchase of each as taxable.