Posted on 08/18/2012 1:51:45 PM PDT by barmag25
LMAO I think you are right.
You would probably be moving your plant to China too.
Now there you go complicating things and creating jobs for lobbyists, politicians, lawyers, accountants, cheats and crooks. But I repeat myself. I said 1% on the GROSS. No exceptions. No deductions. Not even business expenses. If you earn or receive money, you pay 1% tax on it. If you sell an asset (or investment) you pay 1% tax on the gross proceeds. If you sell your house, your car, your boat, your stocks or bonds, you pay 1% tax on the gross proceeds. If a company you own receives revenue from any source you pay 1% tax on it. If a corporation receives revenue from any source it pays 1% tax on it. The monthly or quarterly tax form has one question. How much money have you received this period? Multiply times 1% and send it in.
No individual, company or corporation or anyone else ever receives a dime from the federal government except for those constitutionally allowed and congressionally approved contractual payments for goods and services actually rendered, and a strict accounting is made of that and stiff jail terms applied for all who cheat the system.
What’s one percent of our gross domestic product? If the federal government was pared down to only those functions actually enumerated and authorized by the constitution, how much would we need to cover all costs? Maybe you are right. Maybe we could fund OUR constitutionally authorized government for less than 1% of GDP? Defense would be our single largest expenditure. How much is actually needed for that?
That’s no SS, no medicare, no HUD, not freddie, no fannie, no IRS, no EPA, no FDIC, no FDA, no federally insured or guaranteed anything, in fact, better than 90% of the current federal directory of ABC departments, agencies, commissions, etc, would be shuttered and their budgets reduced to zero. Ninety percent or more of all federally owned assets sold off to repay those who paid into social security, etc. If we need more to repay them, drill, baby, drill; mine, baby, mine; log, baby, log; farm, baby, farm; build baby, build; make, baby, make. Grow the GDP like never before and reap the benefits. The federal government has locked up more than enough natural resources to make our economy boom for a long, long, time.
http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/index.shtml
Oh, and did I mention there’d be no payments from the feds to any state or local government? And no mandates handed down? It was never intended for the feds to lord it over the states.
I couldn’t believe my ears eartlier today. Obama said he had a surplus last year!!! I heard his whole speech. It was not taken out of context! Live on FOX
And Romney would still be paying more in taxes than the 40% percent, freeloaders, in the population.
One of them will eventually generate about $100 trillion in royalties ~ which pretty much pays off the national debt no matter how you compute it ~ even if you use present value analysis.
(just checked and one article says 3 trillion barrels),
What that means is that we don't really have a national debt problem ~ a more realistic concern is that we don't just wipe out other countries' currencies on a casual basis.
We also have the long term difficulty that beat the Hapsburg empire. Along the way they'd married their way around Europe and were related to almost everyone, but the core family OWNED THE AMERICAS and a vast fortune in gold and silver, with more silver being found all the time. The Spanish Milled Dollar was THE world currency in its time.
Their fortune, in Spain, was literally more than the combined value of everything in the rest of the world, which meant they could just buy what they needed. With a relatively small national population of about 15 million at the middle of the 16th century local conditions in several Hapsburg interest areas deteriorated simply because people were unemployed because literally everything was being imported, much of it from China ~ note, by the late 1700s China was once again the world's richest nation ~ mostly through hard work and sales to the Hapsburgs and other wealthy Europeans.
Some older analysts suggested the Spanish lost their skill base, but it's more the case they lost jobs. One area of Spain that had been particularly hard hit (Extremadura i believe it's called) saw much, or even most of its population flee in desperation to the Americas.
With our demonstrated ability to create some serious deflation through fantastic productivity improvement, we could find ourselves hitting the same wall Spain did at the end of the 17th century ~ still rich, still a modest part of total world population, with high unemployment, an exploding national debt, and literally unable to do anything about it.
Which is why I"m not particularly concerned about national debt, but I am really concerned about high growth in productivity when we are also buying our stuff abroad. It's a long term disaster that really does happen.
What a lying sack of turds! and his supporters will lap it up!
You think a “liquidation sale” of anything, even if it produces a loss of, say, 50% should be taxed?
Receiving money is not earning money. You are sounding a lot like a New York democrat lately. Sell a share of stock at a loss? You owe tax.
Sounds very “liberal”.
They have the vote, and are in the majority.
The gave the cretin algore the popular vote, elected Bill Clinton twice, and voted in a foreign communist last time around.
All over but the shouting, the enemy is us.
Time to get out before the apparatchiks put up a wall and prevent the productive class from doing so.
I think if taxes were limited to a flat 1% of all gross proceeds from any source with no exceptions or deductions and government was restricted to only its constitutionally delegated powers we could all live with it.
Think about it.
The idea of a tax on gross receipts always seemed like the stupidest idea I ever heard. It still does in my 14th year of retirement.
Of course, lots of fly by night businesses also collect a percent or two for cashing a check, maybe also for making change for a ten-dollar bill.
Neither seem rational to me.
Tax a low markup business with a large volume more than a high markup business when both net the same? Insane.
The business does not pay the tax. The consumer does. The consumer pays all taxes. Yeah, yeah, I know. That’s not in keeping with accounting theory.
And if the consumer doesn't pay it through increased prices, the investor pays it in the form of reduced returns on his investment.
"Yeah, yeah, I know. That’s not in keeping with accounting theory."
It is also not in keeping with common sense. All businesses have competitors who lose money or break even, and do not need to add taxes onto their prices to break even, (which is the major goal of a lot of marginal businesses that compete with more prominent businesses who "pass their taxes on to their customers").
They can not get away with adding a 20-35% tax rate onto their prices, as their competitors that do not pay taxes do not have to. Prices have to be set to a level that the market will bear.
Of course they do not pass it on to the consumer. But it’s factored into the price the consumer pays all the same.
The consumer pays all of the costs plus profit and tax of the products or services he buys (assuming the business is profitable).
Well, in the end, the consumer pays all costs (including profit and tax). Otherwise the company cannot stay in business.
I agree you need to tax someone’s profits after losses are accounted for. But I also agree with the idea of one tax rate for all sources of income. I don’t see the rationale for different tax rates on earned income, capital gains, inheritance, prizes, etc. If you can spend the money the same way once you get it, then it ought to be taxed the same way. And as little as possible of course. Taxing different profit-making behaviors differently means the government is getting into social engineering, encouraging certain profit-making behaviors over other ones. The idea of people changing what they do and when they do it just to chase down different tax benefits or avoid penalties is an affront to economic freedom and individual choice.
How can it be "factored into the price" when competitors do not have to, because they pay no tax?
Have you ever studied economics, business, accounting, or seen the financial statements of a for-profit enterprise?
Jim!: Clean up on aisle one! I think your site has been hacked and you have some DUmmies posting on your site and using your name.
Yes, I’ve studied accounting. Was in the accounting business for 30 years.
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.