Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
ExactlyKind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?It is pure speculationInvest in business.Then stop buying and selling them.Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.
Next.
If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.
The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?
When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.
Pay a fee on each transaction
I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?
To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.
I guess that's what libs want, however.
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches
1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.
Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.
Think of the revenue that would be generated
It will become the cost of doing business
IRA’s and 401ks are tax free. Retirees will continue to invest.ExactlyKind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?It is pure speculationInvest in business.Then stop buying and selling them.Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.
Next.
If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.
The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?
When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.
Pay a fee on each transaction
I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?
To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.
I guess that's what libs want, however.
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches
1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.
Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.
Think of the revenue that would be generated
It will become the cost of doing business
The revenue wouldn't be nearly as much as you think. The number of people saving for retirement in stocks would decline precipitously.
People would look for other ways to invest, like lottery tickets, greyhound racing and beanie babies.
People would look for other ways to invest, like lottery tickets, greyhound racing and beanie babies.
Sales Taxes:
individuals' annual purchases rather than their paid income taxes, are more accurate indications of their comparative proportional incomes and wealth.
Sales taxes are only regressive in comparison to income taxes, when levied upon those who do not otherwise pay income taxes, (i.e. upon those of much less or no taxable incomes).
[Depending upon the product purchased and the drafting of the law, sales taxes can to some extent be drafted to effectively be greater or lesser regressive].
At some point increases of tax revenues less justify the economic consequences of the increases; those points differ for different tax schemes and their purposes. It's my opinion those points are of comparatively lesser rates for sales taxes rather than taxes on incomes or upon almost any other matters. I also believe it's desirable for all while in the USA, and all USA citizens to the extent we're able, should be equitably required to contribute to our tax revenues.
Respectfully, Supposn
ExactlyKind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?It is pure speculationInvest in business.Then stop buying and selling them.Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.
Next.
If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.
The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?
When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.
Pay a fee on each transaction
I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?
To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.
I guess that's what libs want, however.
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches
1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.
Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.
Think of the revenue that would be generated
It will become the cost of doing business
Working people spend a larger percentage of their income than the wealthy. They have to.
The wealthy paying the same sales tax rate as the poor and working class is regressive.
ExactlyKind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?It is pure speculationInvest in business.Then stop buying and selling them.Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.
Next.
If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.
The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?
When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.
Pay a fee on each transaction
I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?
To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.
I guess that's what libs want, however.
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches
1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.
Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.
Think of the revenue that would be generated
It will become the cost of doing business
I am thinking about the revenue it would generate. Do you really think its that smart to make Big Government even wealthier and more powerful than they are right now?
So you want people to pay more for the stock purchases in their retirement accountsExactlyKind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?It is pure speculationInvest in business.Then stop buying and selling them.Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.
Next.
If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.
The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?
When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.
Pay a fee on each transaction
I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?
To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.
I guess that's what libs want, however.
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches
1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.
Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.
Think of the revenue that would be generated
It will become the cost of doing business
I am thinking about the revenue it would generate. Do you really think its that smart to make Big Government even wealthier and more powerful than they are right now?
www.americanactionforum.org
Stop your sob story ...What about the old people?So you want people to pay more for the stock purchases in their retirement accountsExactlyKind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?It is pure speculationInvest in business.Then stop buying and selling them.Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.
Next.
If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.
The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?
When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.
Pay a fee on each transaction
I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?
To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.
I guess that's what libs want, however.
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches
1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.
Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.
Think of the revenue that would be generated
It will become the cost of doing business
How does that help the little guy?
When has the government ever provided low cost health care?I am thinking about the revenue it would generate. Do you really think its that smart to make Big Government even wealthier and more powerful than they are right now?
I‘m thinking of Government providing services like we used to before we sold out to Supply Side Economics
Modern infrastructure, low cost healthcare, affordable higher education
FYI The super wealthy tend to buy and hold they don't day tradeStop your sob story ...What about the old people?So you want people to pay more for the stock purchases in their retirement accountsExactlyKind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?It is pure speculationInvest in business.Then stop buying and selling them.Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.
Next.
If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.
The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?
When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.
Pay a fee on each transaction
I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?
To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.
I guess that's what libs want, however.
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches
1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.
Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.
Think of the revenue that would be generated
It will become the cost of doing business
How does that help the little guy?
The overwhelming bulk of stock transactions are in the super wealthy The elderly amount to a pittance
They will benefit much more from public services
And the wealthy spend far more actual money than the poor, which equates to a far bigger portion of actual tax revenue under a consumption tax.Working people spend a larger percentage of their income than the wealthy. They have to.
Blues Man, although individuals' annual purchases rather than their paid income taxes are more accurate indications of their incomes or wealth, it would be imprudent to attempt entirely transforming our major tax revenue source within a single year.Yeah it's called the Fair Tax.
Look it up
Stop your sob story ...What about the old people?So you want people to pay more for the stock purchases in their retirement accountsExactlyKind of being hyperbolic aren’t you?It is pure speculationInvest in business.Then stop buying and selling them.Stock Transactions are investments, not purchases.
Next.
If people stop investing in business, who will provide the money for manufacturing, farming, commerce, mining? Big government? Is a bureaucrat or politician better at determining what a good idea to risk money at than investors in the market.
The idea of punishing people for doing the right thing and saving for their retirement doesn't seem to be very wise. How do you think having millions more impoverished seniors living in the homes of their younger relatives going to work out?
When you buy and sell stocks repeatedly you aren't investing in business, you buying and selling stocks. Pay sales tax.
Pay a fee on each transaction
I suppose that the millenials will have no problem supporting the old timers and having them in their homes when they are destitute?
To me, its best for people to save for their own retirement, instead of ending up as an indigent geezer.
I guess that's what libs want, however.
No, a small fee on transactions will not put old people in the poor house
It will keep the wealthy from protecting their riches
1% isn't a "small fee" at all. Its actually quite high will billions of shares of stock being traded on every business day.
Most pension funds trade stocks back and forth all the time, as checks are written, the formula gets out of balance and contributions are received. Stock purchases aren't a "one time " expense.
Think of the revenue that would be generated
It will become the cost of doing business
How does that help the little guy?
The overwhelming bulk of stock transactions are in the super wealthy The elderly amount to a pittance
They will benefit much more from public services
Where did I ever say it had to be done in a single year?Blues Man, although individuals' annual purchases rather than their paid income taxes are more accurate indications of their incomes or wealth, it would be imprudent to attempt entirely transforming our major tax revenue source within a single year.Yeah it's called the Fair Tax.
Look it up
Increasing the sales tax while reducing income taxes should be done simultaneously by incremental annual steps. After reaching the last of those steps, the income tax would be effectively eliminated.
But I believe that after one of those incremental steps, the sales tax would approach an unacceptable rate and transformation steps would be discontinued.
[At some point increases of tax revenues less justify the economic consequences of the increases; those points differ for different tax schemes and their purposes. It's my opinion those points are of comparatively lesser rates for sales taxes rather than taxes on incomes or upon almost any other matters.] Respectfully, Supposn
The great thing about the Fair Tax is that only new goods are taxed.A consumption tax is a fine motivation to increase one's earnings, too.
Not to mention a consumption tax encourages saving. Disagree if you'd like, but people who save money are far better off in the long run than those who don't. Better prepared for job loss, better prepared for life's unexpected costs, better prepared for retirement, and far less stressed on a daily basis, which equates to better health outcomes.
