taxation

[Happy Monkey]

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

[Lamplighter]

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'

..."Eventually, he [Cain] wants to swap out all three of those taxes
in favor of a single consumption tax, or "fair tax,"
but given how difficult it is to revamp the tax code even once,
the 9-9-9 structure would probably be in place for a long time --
and the rates wouldn't necessarily stay at 9 percent.

That, Norquist says, is the fatal flaw in the 9-9-9 plan:
Instead of having one tax that could increase, we would have three.
"It gives you three taxes, all of which could grow," he told CNN.
"You will have put three needles in your arm to draw blood instead of one."
<snip>
"To put tapeworms in your tummy to try and maintain your weight --
they may have their own idea about their growth patterns and
what they want to do," he said. "Creating new taxes is a very dangerous project."

.
It's almost delicious watching the Republican Party eat their own children.
.

[classicman]

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation's first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.

continued here
Pretty cool read

[Lamplighter]

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.

[DanaC]

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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

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"

Because he's black, of course.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law.

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

[henry quirk]

"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...

[henry quirk]

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...

[henry quirk]

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.

[Lamplighter]

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.

[henry quirk]

"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.

[TheMercenary]

Who really pays...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...ent/50676912/1

[classicman]

and what is your conclusion after reading that article?

[TheMercenary]

That Big V is full of ideological bull shit and has no idea what he is talking about....

[SamIam]

My conclusion is that, as usual, Merc ignores or skips over anything that doesn't fit in with his ideology. Like this from Merc's link:

Q: But $30,000's not a big income — is most of that growth among nonpayers coming near the bottom of that scale?

A: Much of it is — the number of nontaxable returns for filers with incomes of $30,000-$40,000 went from about 85,000 — about a third of 1% of the total — to 4.8 million, or 8% of the total, by 2009. That's an increase of more than 5,000%. (By way of comparison, the overall number of tax returns went up by about 17%, and the total number of nontaxable returns doubled in that time.)

But the percentage increase was even bigger for higher wage earners. Nontaxable returns from people with income between $75,000 and $100,000 went from 4,025 in 1996 to 476,624 in 2009 — an increase of almost 12,000%. More than 1,400 millionaires didn't pay income taxes in 2009, either.

(emphasis my own)

So what about that, Merc? What's with this 12,000% increase of well off slackers who live in this country, yet don't pay their taxes? And, never mind them, what about the parasitic 1,400 millionaires who didn't pay anything either? Should these people be allowed to drive on the Interstates? Should our military protect them or should we just go ahead and send that 1,400 to Afganistan so that they can finally make some contribution to this country? And what makes them any different from the illegals who pay no taxes?

Hmmmmmmm? Inquiring minds want to know.