Posted on 11/02/2018 7:56:26 AM PDT by C19fan
I get $1155 a month in Soc Sec.
A 2% tax would equal $23.10 a month when that money is electronically deposited into my account.
I then write out a number of checks & sometimes make a withdrawal-ATM or at the counter. I rarely have more than $20 left in my account at the end of those events.
There is another $23.00 ++
So I should be taxes $46.00 +++ on my Social Security?
IF such a tax is applied to business, then all consumer goods & purchases will cost at least 2% more, making my loss more like 4%.
This is just plain wrong.
As one example, one effect would be that such a tax would accelerate the use of cryptocurrencies.
I’m sure that the government would take countermeasures, but the targeted victims would take measures to counter those.
Eventually, the back and forth between aggressor (government) and victim (all of us) will chew up the revenue created by the tax in enforcement efforts to close the creative loopholes people discovered/created to avoid the law’s impact.
This would create an enormous underground economy, it would put pressure on the US dollar, banks generally would fail.
Businesses like mine will seek out alternative ways of handling money. So will everyone else.
The second would kill the first. A 3% loss on every transactions between vendors would overwhelm most advantages of specialization. This would also kill a lot of entrepreneurship because many new companies are formed to be efficient specialists.
If you want to create a stagnant economy dominated by huge megacorporations, put in a transaction tax.
There are over 43 million people collecting Soc Sec-—We don’t pay FICA anymore, and we paid plenty of it when we were working. We don’t need a 2 or 3 % tax on the small amount we get in SS now.
Going ‘back to physical checks’ won’t avoid the 2% transaction tax....A transaction is a transaction. Even the monthly service charge I have on my printed bank account statements & ATM withdrawals would be taxed 2%.
actually it doesn't address the growth of entitlements - CUTTING entitlements will address the growth of entitlements. Sheesh, and I'm not even mensa.
Let me help you:
$20,000 of SS income looks like $17,000 in income for income tax purposes.
Under the current tax rates, you pay nothing for that $20,000, which looks like $17,000.
And there is a standard deduction of $12,000 to first subtract out of that $17,000, leaving $5,000. And all of this was figured with only the single taxpayer numbers. You pay 10% of $5,000 in tax for $20,000 in Social Security income.
Get over yourself.
Just tax the money going out of the US economy — to China, India, Mexico, etc.
This is a tax only on transaction related to welfare.
Charge for school attendance as well seeing many people are using it as day care and not supporting the teachers.
Please excuse me for jumping in here, but what I think “Conservative Mind” meant to say is that at certain (high) income levels, up to 85% of the SS benefits will be added to “Taxable Income”. It is not taxed at 85%, but at the regular rates after the 85% of SS benefits is added to taxable income. (I just looked this up in the 2017 edition of “The Tax Book,” a publication of Tax Materials, Inc., —www.thetaxbook.com.)
Correct. I meant to end that last sentence as “at an 85% rate.”
This article DOES NOT HAVE THAT QUOTE nor does it speak to any tax on any transactions that are not directly welfare.
Are you 0bama’s brain?
This article says only that welfare transactions would get the tax.
How many “trading floors” are acting as the US government, giving direct welfare to people?
Get your head out.
This does not tax anything that is not welfare.
You didn’t read the article, just like the thread poster didn’t, huh?
If you want to increase tax revenue then you would want to LOWER taxes.
You forgot one thing the other income. It puts you in a higher tax income and marriage penalty. Your wife’s and your SS are combined. Did you read the whole text, go back an look at it. Other savings are taxable plus the SS. I only say that SS, that seniors are receiving does have a tax already. If their income reaches above a specific amount of total income. And that tax is 85% of their total yearly SS income. Yes their are seniors that do not have to pay that extra tax income.
I stand corrected, as that quote is from where he would remove the 15% FICA tax from everyone, in exchange for the 2-3% transaction tax.
The main crux of the article is the welfare transaction tax.
It is debatable whether a transaction tax, which foreign investors would also have to pay, is a wise avenue to substitute fully for FICA.
They are all a bunch of damned idiots. Sure enough, increasing taxes reduces debt but only until spending more than you take in begins again.
What needs to be done is just castrate any sob who even suggests more spending and that includes the present administration.
The problem is not revenue. The problem is spending.
Somebody asked what charities I would contribute to if I won the lottery. I said none, I will do my bit for all of you by making sure I never become a problem to any of you. I’ve tried to do just that all my life, take care of what I am responsible for. If others were made to do the same thing we would not have nearly so many problems. Consequences stink but without them people continue to do stupid things.
“Ed.D., Instructional Leadership, St. John’s University
M.B.A., Taxation, Pace University
B.S., Accounting, St. John’s University”
No thanks. This turd is a globalist of the worst type
Disclaimer: 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.