In response to:

Fiscal Cliff? Tax the Rich

Whitebeard Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 11:12 AM
I think we should consider the recommendation of a panel convened under Clinton that finished its work under Bush. These experts determined that a .03% transaction tax could replace every Federal tax, would be "fair" because it is one rate for all, taxes those who have no "income" (such as the Warren Buffet types), taxes investments on Wall Street by foreign investors, captures tax from the underground economy, etc.
OBAMA-DRAMA Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 11:24 AM
Whitebeard... For decades the "transaction tax" as has been what today is termed the "fair tax" has been debated. The first is to be applied to all transactions while the latter only to cash register sales.

Neither can possibly work. Few qualified scholars of economics believes otherwise.

The "transaction tax" is a gimmick. The intent is to apply such to every 'transaction' conducted daily on Wall Street. So doing would collapse the Stock Market and never be sufficient to offset America's yearly federal budget deficit nor the National Debt since most stock market derived gains are very small.

The real and applicable solution is to heavily tax foundations... both their equity and other assets... along with taxing inheritances...
OBAMA-DRAMA Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 11:25 AM
... above 5 million dollars at 95%. These two things alone would take four decades to eliminate the National Debt while at the same time about one decade to achieve a balanced federal yearly budget thus having no yearly deficits.
OneForFreedom Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 11:31 AM
If I were Bill Gates, and I knew that everything I've got, that's more than 5 million, would be basically taken from my children, I'd do one of two things:

1) Unload all my stock at once, driving the price of MS stock to the pennies on the dollar level or
2) Buy a few billion dollars worth of bricks. The gubimnt can come collect their 95%
Whitebeard Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 12:28 PM
OD: I certainly am no tax expert, but I doubt your statement that a transaction tax is a "gimmick." Moreover, the recommendation was to tax ALL transactions in the economy...not just Wall Street, not just cash register sales. Finally, do you believe that a tax of $300 on a $100,000 transaction on Wall Street would "collapse the Stock Market?" Really? Respectfully, I disagree.
Fred1666 Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 12:48 PM
For what it's worth, if I sell 100,000 worth of stock and I keep 10,000 for myself and reinvest the rest, I should pay income tax on the 10k. Then much lower rates can be paid on the portion I reinvest. Re-investments could be categorized in such a way that investment in actual business expansion or capital improvement could be tax free while investing in existing stocks or property could be taxed. It is all about incentivizing growth and expansion.
OBAMA-DRAMA Wrote: Nov 10, 2012 12:49 PM

A $100,000 'transaction' on Wall Street might (if lucky) include 3% being profit. Once such a "transaction tax" were applied it would only ever escalate in terms of amount and percentage.

The "transaction tax" and it's many iterations has been debated since the 1930's.

Barack Obama wants you to know that the rich are out of control.

And I partially agree. It’s a matter of fairness.

After thinking about it for a few years, he has finally figured out that our economic problems have a very simple explanation: There are too many rich people.

I know of at least one too many. The one occupying the White House? Way too rich.

(Editor's note: I'm taking a few days off. I'll see you guys again on Tuesday)

Too many rich people are causing a jobless “recovery.” Having too many rich people caused gas...

Related Tags: Tax the Rich Tax rich