Skip to comments.
1% Tax on ALL Financial Transactions
| Oct. 30, 2010
Posted on 10/30/2010 10:28:10 AM PDT by econjack
This topic was posted here once before, but only 10 people commented on it! I can't believe that, since this tax applies to EVERY deposit you make to any financial account. And, it works on money going out of the account, too. So if you write a check to your child in college, you get charged 1% of the amount. Your child, when they deposit the check also gets charged 1%. Only 10 of you find that a bad idea! Come on...this should cause rioting in the streets!
The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter DeFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. It is now in committee and will probably not be brought out until after the Nov. elections.
President Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged. This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn.
Some will say: Aw, it's just 1%... remember once the tax is there they can raise it at will.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: balancedbudget; hr4646; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
It would appear that money going out of an account would also be subject to this tax.
posted on 10/30/2010 10:28:11 AM PDT
Taxes on money going into your account and out of it!
posted on 10/30/2010 10:32:02 AM PDT
by A. Morgan
I say go for it, pass it Congress, it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Things must get worse before they get better, and this huge money grab by Washington would be the final barrier to open revolution against the ruling class.
I'd much rather an ax like this chop into the pile than the constant and never ending splintering of the log that's happening now.
posted on 10/30/2010 10:32:31 AM PDT
(Favorite Sticker: Lost hope, and Obama took my change.)
Luckily, my mattress doesn’t charge tax.
Lexington....Concorde......shots heard round the world part deux!!!!!!!
posted on 10/30/2010 10:35:27 AM PDT
(Al-Qaeda grew while Monica blew)
I think they got the idea from Neal Bortz.... and put it on steroids.
It won’t go anywhere.
posted on 10/30/2010 10:36:05 AM PDT
This doesn’t pass the stupid test and should be enough to Baker act its sponsors and keep them from any position in which they may be responsible for anything relevant to financial matters. A check to the Federal government for taxes due would be a financial transaction - would you always have to pay the IRS 101 percent of the amount due?
posted on 10/30/2010 10:38:52 AM PDT
This bill comes up from time to time and info on it is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4646/show
Although the bill does not seem to have any support, it wouldn't hurt to call your Congressmen and let them know how you feel about it.
More underground economy headed your way.
posted on 10/30/2010 10:40:01 AM PDT
( Sarah 2012!!! Home of the free because of the brave.)
Some professor in Wisconsin came up with this idea years ago. He determined that if you placed a 0.6% tax on all transactions (0.3% charged to the spender and 0.3% charged to the receiver), that you would raise enough money to fund all government expenses. That's right, ALL government expenses. All other taxes could be done away with. He went on to explain the biggest danger of this. The government would be tempted to increase the amount to 0.7% resulting in an unprecedented windfall of cash. That temptation would be too great to risk.
To see Democrats today calling for a 1.0% transaction tax with no desire whatsoever to eliminate all the other taxes shows that their greed is limitless.
posted on 10/30/2010 10:40:06 AM PDT
( .For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.d)
Why not just call it a Stamp Tax!! It seemed to have caused a bit of a problem the last time a tyrannical regime (George III) tried it.
Perhaps we could simplify the idea and just tax payments made to lawyers - by say 10%. That would kill many birds with a single stone.
posted on 10/30/2010 10:41:12 AM PDT
(Check the data!!)
His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.
This movement doesn’t stand a chance and something this big couldn’t be sneaked in under the radar when the whole country will be watching this lame duck congress’ every move and every breath into and beyond Jan 2011.
This is why only 10 people responded. Not a chance it’ll go forward.
To: A. Morgan
trying to kill America one transaction at a time. as if things are not bad enough
This would drive the economy completely underground. Everybody would operate on a cash-only basis. You would be punished for putting your money in the bank, so you'd stuff it in your mattress instead.
I'm all for this thing. All sources of government income would evaporate overnight.
posted on 10/30/2010 10:43:32 AM PDT
by E. Pluribus Unum
("The only stable state is one in which all men are equal before the law." -- Aristotle)
Hmmm,If this passes the cash economy will get a definite boost.
Hello soviet era black markets....
posted on 10/30/2010 10:43:35 AM PDT
correct me if I'm wrong. I thought that Oregon has no taxes.If this is true, then it would make sense for DeFazio to introduce such a bill... in his own, for his own State.
Taxing all banking transactions is 100% thievery.
Just wait until they start confiscating our 401K’s and pensions. It has just begun.
posted on 10/30/2010 10:45:15 AM PDT
(Hey algore...You'll have to pry the steering wheel of my 317 HP V8 truck from my cold dead hands)
This is from Snopes.com. FactCheck.org had essentially the same take on this.
Origins: Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress, although their bills never come close to passing, or even clear committee to be put to votes in the first place. The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and now refers to as the "Debt Free America Act").
In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-based system (H.R. 3759),he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703). None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor.
In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay downthe national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February  by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.).His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill states that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee: is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users
is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction
is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals.
[This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction.
The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument.
The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions.
Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provides for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gives the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately rely.)
Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act has no sponsors other than himself, has been languishing in committee ever since it was introduced, and has about as much chance of passing as a snowball does of surviving hell. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings have garnered vastly, vastly outstrips any real possibility that such legislation will actually be enacted.
Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings are erroneous: Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax." The proposal for the Debt Free America Act is purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.
Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or has publicly supported it.
The included link that supposedly shows Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedates the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually refer to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio. That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (AlthoughRep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too has since languished in committee without being brought to a vote.)
posted on 10/30/2010 10:46:00 AM PDT
posted on 10/30/2010 10:50:54 AM PDT
(obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, retired Military, disabled & Seniors)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60 next last
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson