How about a new tax called the “National Debt Solution Tax”. A flat 1% tax on all retail sales, tied to a balanced budget amendment with teeth. This is kind of a National Consumption Tax and every penny goes to paying off the national debt and the idiots in Congress cannot move these funds around or tamper with this tax. This would be handled by a whole new government agency, NOT THE IRS. This is a very fair tax to the poor and the super rich. Yes, food stamps would be excluded and maybe home purchases. Let's say that I am a middle class American and I go to buy a car that costs $20,000: I pay $200 bucks. Donald Trump wants to buy a $600,000 Maybach Mercedes, so he pays $6,000. A poor person buys a $1,500 junker, they pay only $15. I go to the store and get $100 buck of groceries, I chip in $1.00. Someone should calculate how much this would generate and how fast it might start to bring down the debt or, if nothing else, cover the damn interest. This is not the same as the Flat Tax that Herman Cain and others are recommending and have recommended over the years. This is a special tax to solve a special problem and it would send a strong message to the rest of the world that the American people are going to step up to the bar and address the problem with their pocket book. This would not bother me and, as stated, it would have to be tied to a balanced budget amendment. I wish I had the numbers to calculate the financial impact of this. This would not be on wholesale sales, only on retail sales or sales of goods and services to the end users. Yes, even the attorneys and accountants would pay 1% for selling there services. This is much better than the 1% transaction tax that has been bounced around, because many people do not have bank accounts and there is the entire underground cash economy that would avoid the transaction tax. 1% would not kill anyone!!!!!!!!!!, but Congress would be forbidden to ever increase this amount or use these funds for anything else that to pay the nation debt.SO.....THE PHANTOM would like your opinion (he's a good friend of mine) and so would I......GO FOR IT. thanks.
z
39 comments:
I can't afford to buy much, so this wouldn't impact me.
Retail sales in America total between $350 Billion and $450 Billion a month (the high end in December / Christmas time).
Let's call it $350 Billion a month average, although currently under Obama's Magnificent Depression (why settle for a Great Depression?) we're barely at $300 Billion a month in retail sales (August and September sucked, bad)
A 1% tax on all retail sales would currently generate revenues around $3.5 Billion A MONTH, about a third of what the Federal government spends IN ONE DAY.
Considering the federal government's daily $10 Billion spending habit also adds around $4 Billion to the national debt EVERYDAY, you're looking at throwing $3.5 Billion a month at a debt that increases by $120 Billion a month.
In other words, we can't tax out debts away.
WE MUST CUT FEDERAL SPENDING.
Using the figures above, the national debt increases (currently) by around $1.5 Trillion a year, and the 1% retail sales tax idea to try to pay it off would raise around $42 Billion a year. Said and done, we'd still be increasing the national debt by $1.4 Trillion and change a year.
That's not counting the extra federal spending to come in Obama's second term (let's not kid ourselves that he's out in 2012) or the increased burden of Social Security and Medicare as the Baby Boomers begin retiring in droves.
After liabilities are paid, the net worth in assets of the United States is around $54 Trillion currently. (That's private property, stocks, pensions, checking and savings accounts, etc. held by the citizens of the US).
Obviously we could liquidate $15 Trillion in assets and pay off the national debt today.
Who's first? Who should give up their real estate, cars, bank accounts, retirement pension funds, and other property to pay off the Baby Boomer's debt?
I know my answer. ;)
To make things "fair" and reduce the intergenerational burden of passing debts to children and grandchildren, instead of progressively taxing higher incomes, why don't we progressively tax higher ages instead?
First, we should remove voting rights from every American born before 1965. Those Americans have historically shown a blatant disregard for their own country's economic health, so let's just remove their political influence upon society altogether. After all, the Baby Boomers wanted their kids and grandkids to solve their problems instead of growing up and taking responsibility for themselves. Well, here we are.
Second, we should seize every asset of every American citizen born before 1965. We can cut the military's ammunition budget by the number of these citizens that refuse to comply.
Third, we should pass a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution so that no other Baby Boomer-like group of parasites can come along and abuse the privilege of being American.
Fourth, we should eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare and replace them with an amendment to the Constitution mandating capital punishment for any Senator or Congressman that tries to resurrect them.
That's my high bid. Let's negotiate.
[tongue firmly planted in cheek of course]
As it's been said before, we DON'T have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem.
This tax won't work, anymore than increasing taxes on the "rich".
No more taxes until the congress and senate start to eliminate waste and show a willingness to stop the status quo of too much government...
That from one of the parasites that beamish has warned you about!
Agreed, the military costs far too much, produces little of lasting value and needs drastic cuts.
Deal with that before increasing taxes, at least taxes on the middle and lower lass.
Beamish, not sure which part of your comments during which your tongue was stuck in your cheek because I recognize some sentiments I believe you DO hold, so it'll be difficult to explain for me to explain to my friend the the PHANTOM what you're about for him to get a better grasp of what you're saying...but I'll try via email.
I guess it's still better to raise some money somehow; I'm quite sure the PHANTOM approves of cutting costs, too.
But, he really loves this country and is a highly successful businessman who would never pick defense as the place to weaken ourselves through less spending.
He thinks way too much of our country and our military and understands how important it was (I wish I could say IS again) to this country to stay prepared and ready....that was before we had REAL threats to our homeland and the Left picked that more precarious time to start to weaken , just in time for REAL TROUBLE.
Scotty...cutting costs wouldn't be negated by a tax like the Phantom's.
Z... I think we need to look at the bigger picture of tax reform.
Looking politically, there is no way the GOP is going to accept any kind of new national tax on anything, even if it could be shown to be a help on the debt.
Their view is one of only cutting spending, and only on certain types of programs.
Scotty...cutting costs wouldn't be negated by a tax like the Phantom's.
What I'm saying, is, until I see a willingness on our politicians part to cut costs, I'm not willing to entertain ANY type of tax increase.
I guess another way to put it, I want to see more accountability. I see none now.
That was the point I was trying to make, Z.
You have to think like government.
Once installed, this so-called "special tax" would NEVER go away. It would merely be increased over the years and ANOTHER level of taxation laid over it.
Nope.
Cut cut cut.
BZ
Dave, while we can both see that most Conservatives aren't for ANY more taxes, I believe many would possibly support something which is fair; it's the redistribution, the socialism of the Left's ideas today which they're balking from. They're balking too hard, in my estimation but I certainly can't blame them.
It's utterly amazing to see people on the Left deeming for US that people should only be allowed to get as rich as $100 million, like Roseanne Barr just suggested....going further to suggest we behead those who take advantage of the poor. Poor Roseanne doesn't realize that, with her earnings, she'd be the first at the guillotine.
BZ, you have a point.
As important at a balanced budget is, the real problem is the Fed. They charge us interest on every dollar they create out of thin air. How do we pay the interest? We have them print money for us which they charge further interest on. It's a perpetual debt machine. Before we add any taxes we need to start making our own money.
"Before we add any taxes we need to start making our own money."
Trestin; it almost feels stacked up to where we CAN'T.....
I agree with BZ. History shows, when it comes to taxes, no matter how it's set up, or sold to the people, the result is always the same.
Furthermore, just look back at how Social Security was set up. In a fund which would gain interest, and grow over time.
Plus of course in those days our lifespan was in the 60's, the same age bracket one could receive SS payments.
However, the promise of a fund, was changed when under LBJ, Congress was allowed to "borrow" that money and it went into the general fund. The SS fund is a myth, and is now, nothing but IOUs, and meaningless. It doesn't exist.
But how else was LBJ going to pay for his war on poverty except to steal from the future? Now we have a new war on poverty, only this time, it'll cost a hell of a lot more, including what remains of our freedom.
The money for SS is in the payroll tax, and employers' tax as well, and Congress spends it! Not only that, but for people like Mr. Pris and I, we pay taxes on over 80% of our SS. In other words a tax, on a tax.
I figure it won't be long now, before we're paying taxes on 100% of our SS. Sweet deal for the government huh?
I'm sorry to say, that while at first blush the 1% sounds reasonable, it'll go the way of all other methods of Congress confiscating our money, and end up spent, like all the rest.
As for you Beamish, you're not racist, or sexist, you're an ageist. Btw, when were you born, 1970? How convenient!
But no worries, if Obamacare isn't overturned, we seniors will be rationed into an early grave. That should make you jump with joy.
Z, Roseanne Barr is yelling fire in a crowded theater. There's free speech and then there's inciting violence.
But what can we expect from a Regressive? Yes she want's to bring the guillotine to the US.
I thought liberals were against the death penalty, didn't you? Or does that only only apply to cop killers?
Phantom's plans included very stringent laws about what Congress could do with this 1% and how it would be administered, and I would like to think that COngress would heed those restrictions but most of you are probably right....
who knows what could happen?
I am getting more and more sure cutting spending isn't going to make a dent but I hope that's just me.
And Beamish speaketh:
"First, we should remove voting rights from every American born before 1965.
Second, we should seize every asset of every American citizen born before 1965.
Third...no other Baby Boomer-like group of parasites can come along and abuse the privilege of being American.
Fourth, we should eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,..."
I guess Beamish was born an orphan in 1965.
As phar as the phantom goes, stop creating additional government bureaucracies. Additional taxes will not solve the problem, and creating another level of government makes the problem worse.
Dave says: "Their view is one of only cutting spending, and only on certain types of programs."
Dave, I think you are being myopic in you assessment of the conservative position on taxes. Additional taxes always result in decreased economic activity. Taxes remove money from the economy much in the same way blocking gasoline to a gasoline engine slows that machine.
The popular device of taxing the rich (who already pay most of the income taxes, percentage wise and dollar wise) would be a double strike against economic activity.
First, like all taxes, money would be deterred from consumption and investing.
Secondly, taxing these people (individual, S-Corp, LLC,etc) even more will contribute to additional unemployment.
This is not magic, it is basic economics.
Bob, what would YOU cut out that you think could make any significant dent in our debt and put us on a right track without putting starving and sick people in the streets?
Are you more for moving things to the States, though most of them are nearly or totally bankrupt by now, too?
Playing devil's advocate here, but only a little..........:-)
"what would YOU cut out that you think could make any significant dent in our debt and put us on a right track"
My 2 cents? I couldn't resist Z. EPA, IRS, DOE, Housing.
Flat tax of 15% for everyone. EPA is a job killer. Let the states set their standards. Those who don't wish to explore for gas / oil...pay triple for the privilege of using other states resources.
Leave Education / Housing up to the states. Restore the power of the 10 Amendment.
We need a National Defense.
It would require another agency, a bloated bureaucracy to do so little.
As to a balanced budget amendent, i blogged on the subject and all it does is open the gates for more abuse.
The Constitution is clear on spending but it is ignored.
Should a BBA be ratified the result would be to finish off what little is left of our existing Constitution of enumerated powers; and create a new system where Congress’unconstitutional legislation & spending is legitimized – as long as it is no more than 20% of the GDP.
And since Congress, the executive branch and the judicial branch already ignore the limitations the existing Constitution places on their powers (they have no lawful authority outside of their enumerated powers); it would be no time at all before they ignore the 20% limit on spending. This “emergency” or that “emergency” would arise; and soon the 20% limit would be ignored as well.
So if the BBA is not the answer and if Congress has the powers to control spending, Why don’t they control their spending now? The Republicans control the House – NO spending can get through the House unless the Republicans approve it. So if the Republicans really wanted to control spending and balance the budget, they could do it now. Why don’t they do it? Because they don’t want to.
You mean they are lying to We The People? Yep , it would appear so or else they are so stupid that they don't know or understand the Constitutional powers given to each Branch of the Government. I'd say probably a good combination of both.
Basically the BBA would only legitimize the unconstitutional spending that they are doing now.
So a 1% tax is just a door for more bureaucracy and a BBA would only destroy what is left of the enumuration of powers as set forth in the Constitution.
The only way is to STOP SPENDING on useless programs and useless agencies such as EPA and Dept of Education and a whole list of others. Kill the economy killing regulations and bingo, money in the bank to pay down the debt. Return Education back to the States and Bingo a few more Billion back to solving the debt problem.
A flat tax would eliminate the need for 80% of the IRS bureaucracy.
Need I go on?
A) The government doesn't need any more money to spend; and
B) I'm all for cutting taxes (starting with eliminating the income tax) and cutting spending but it's a futile; meaningless effort that doesn't address the cancerous tumor that is the United States' monetary system.
Big deal if you can get $500 billion in immediate cuts (you won't with this lot), you've still neglected to deal with the Federal Reserve that lent out $16 Trillion dollars ($3 Trillion going to foreign banks).
[Sigh....] some just can't seem to see the forest for the trees.
so tired of hearing about these control freaks in govt Z...good gosh.
Repeat after me, and over meaningless socialist quacking,
STOP SPENDING MY MONEY!
~ Will
Agreed, the military costs far too much, produces little of lasting value and needs drastic cuts.
Heh.
And he posted it on DARPAnet too.
::laughs at Ducky mercilessly::
Beamish, not sure which part of your comments during which your tongue was stuck in your cheek because I recognize some sentiments I believe you DO hold, so it'll be difficult to explain for me to explain to my friend the the PHANTOM what you're about for him to get a better grasp of what you're saying...but I'll try via email.
Sorry, my email is quarantined at the moment. I rarely check that account anymore.
My first two posts were the "serious" reply. The third post was me throwing a firebomb ;)
As for you Beamish, you're not racist, or sexist, you're an ageist. Btw, when were you born, 1970? How convenient!
No less convenient is your having no choice when you were born than your deciding people not even born yet should pay for your parasitism.
But no worries, if Obamacare isn't overturned, we seniors will be rationed into an early grave. That should make you jump with joy.
Shovel ready jobs for everyone!
Beamish "Sorry, my email is quarantined at the moment. I rarely check that account anymore."
I meant I had to explain your comments and opinions (not an easy fete) to my friend "Phantom" via HIS email :-)
"My first two posts were the "serious" reply. The third post was me throwing a firebomb ;)"
That's what I thought..thanks!
When those IDIOTS in DC finally figure out that putting people back to work WILL INCREASE REVENUES, and at the same time REDUCE SPENDING, maybe they will try a bit harder to actually get more jobs!! People working will be paying taxes AND collecting less freebies. Why do they think that things have gotten so much worse over the past few years? It's almost ALL because of the unemployment!!---well that plus out of control spending by Bush and NObama. Jesus, what do I have to do, run for President myself?? You want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Maybe that old saying is right after all.
Average American; Obama says he wants to hire people by the droves...maybe he'll even consider spending some of that Stimulus MOney nobody can find. But, while that's MAKING JOBS, it's unsustainable...it's US giving US jobs that won't last because once the project's over, the worker's OVER.
What then?
Do you think he even understands private enterprise jobs? Do you think he even believes in the kind where businesses do well, hire people, and everybody thrives?
"What then?"
He'll have his army of the people. Armed with shovels, axes, picks, clubs, sticks and other "shovel" ready implements...
then they'll get spiffy tan uniforms, armbands and berets. Malik Shabazz will become their General. And they'll guard all the polling places legally, now. Holder will be their chief counsel.
It's all simple to see.
"No less convenient is your having no choice when you were born than your deciding people not even born yet should pay for your parasitism."
beamish,
Mr. Pris and I didn't have the option of deciding whether we had to pay for over fifty years, into SS, either. We just did it because we had no choice just like you.
Funny isn't it, we didn't feel sorry for ourselves having to pay for others to receive it either.
You can claim tongue in cheek all you want, but I haven't forgotten your absolute disdain for the elderly, over and over again. Actually, I don't give a damn how sorry you feel for yourelf.
Instead of blaming politicians for confiscating this money, you blame people who had no more choice than you do.
It's time to get real and take control of your own life decisons, instead of resenting people who have been in the same position you are.
Thus sayeth Z, "Bob, what would YOU cut out "
1. Kill Obama care.
2. Cut all departmental budgets by 10% across the board.
3. Go to a zero based budget system, thereby forcing all government agencies to justify their existence.
4. Stop all agricultural subsidies.
5. Cut out all government subsidies for energy efficiencies. Let the market choose the winners.
6. Eliminate the EPA. We can start all over, there, and not kill our economy with brain dead regulations.
There are lots of things we can do without raising taxes. Taxes kill economic activity.
We don't need no stinking taxes.
Pris, you make some excellent points there, thanks.
Bob...GREAT ideas. Will make sure my good buddy in Spokane (the PHANTOM) reads this.
He appreciates all your comments, everyone, and adds:
"Easy to blow holes in most any suggestion, so why does he (Z: Beamish, particularly) not come up with solutions himself?????? None of us like the idea of more taxes, but the reality is that we have a problem and it needs to be addressed, so this addresses it to some degree, but it is fair and everyone chips in from the top to the bottom."
true
"Easy to blow holes in most any suggestion, so why does he (Z: Beamish, particularly) not come up with solutions himself??????
My solution would seek to penalize the cause of the debt in the first place.
The Supreme Court has already ruled, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that Congress can cancel entitlement programs and deny "promised" benefits AT ANY TIME.
Of course, this prospect ruffles the feathers of the far-left communists (such as the Tea Party "movement") who have planned all their lives to retire as wards of the state.
Never will you hear one of these whining twits from the Tea Party or any other of their fellow far leftists give even a ballpark figure of how many people would starve to death without Social Security and Medicare... even worse, they cry that eliminating those debt-generating programs would adversely affect people who haven't even retired yet to begin living off of them!
The Baby Boomer "entitle me" generation is bought and paid for, and you'll play hell trying to get them to ever actually pay for themselves.
Honest discussion is out of the question. It's not "politically correct" to call a socialist parasite a socialist parasite.
So, we'll always have a group on the American body politic screaming "don't touch my cancerous growth!"
Thus, we'll never get debt under control as "obligations" continue to increase.
Beamish, I happen to know several people who'd probably starve to death with social security and medicare. Two particularly, and we're not a large congregation.
Never married, never well educated, worked hard their whole lives, no family, and are lucky to be getting something at all.
...is it tea-time again? hmm. ;)
Bob, I wasn't advocating for additional taxes, like the post from Phantom, I was merely pointing out a fact, the GOP currently is going to oppose every type of tax increase.
Now Z seemed to disagree with me, but from the posts here, at least her commenters agree, no new taxes of any kind whatsoever.
Post a Comment