Feds: Banks Should Call Police if Customer Withdraws More Than $5k in Cash

[ginwilly]

You may be right, you may also be wrong, I wasn't there, so I don't have an opinion either way.

I do however have a quick question for you, which I've yet seen you answer.

If you say you are pro women's rights, pro legalization, and all the other things you said earlier today, why did you tell us all that Rand Paul was your ideal candidate and he was a true American. Which one were you lying about?

Here is a link you can reference. It is Rand Paul's voting record.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/117285/rand-paul#.VRiCeRDF8m8

Listen to a man's actions not his words.

You'll first have to find the quote where I said that. I may have sarcastically said something about how dreamy he is and how great the hair is because it gets under the skin of floor shitters, but you have me confused with someone else.

I have repeated many times that I automatically don't trust a person who not only seeks out power over others, but actually think they deserve it.

I would prefer Paul over any of the moral majority right or politically correct left though, there is that, but no, he is not my ideal candidate.

I'll share my prez voting record with you as far back as I voted. 92' Perot, 96 Clinton, 00 and 04 I sat out, 08 I wrote in my bro-in-law, 12 was Johnson. I'm not a big partisan guy, but you are welcome to make anything else up about me if you need to feel better.

 

[whitebb2727]

No offense taken, but why do you think we can't replace income taxes? We used to not collect those on the federal level we still have states that get by without them.

Yes but its like my wife. She has naturally curly hair. Looks like a professional permed her hair. Women tell her all the time they wish they had hair like that. My wife hates it and straightens it. I would bet ten g's if it was strait, she would want curly.

I was raised on the TN line. They have no state income tax. They have eight percent sales tax, might be nine by now. Every body in TN would bitch about the sales tax and wished for income tax.

So yes, you can do away with income tax but the money still has to come from some where.

How is a higher sales tax any less coercive than income tax?

 

[ginwilly]

Yes but its like my wife. She has naturally curly hair. Looks like a professional permed her hair. Women tell her all the time they wish they had hair like that. My wife hates it and straightens it. I would bet ten g's if it was strait, she would want curly.

I was raised on the TN line. They have no state income tax. They have eight percent sales tax, might be nine by now. Every body in TN would bitch about the sales tax and wished for income tax.

So yes, you can do away with income tax but the money still has to come from some where.

How is a higher sales tax any less coercive than income tax?

Don't know about TN but when I grew up in MI, there was no sales tax on food, I think it's changed now though.

Sales tax is through a voluntary transaction. A higher sales tax as opposed to a higher income tax curbs reckless spending and encourages more saving. Something that long term is the best for our country's economics. With interest rates at near zero and easy loans, we are currently doing it the opposite, that only props things up temporarily. When the credit bubble bursts, it may make the housing bubble seem minor.

 

[sheskunk]

In the context of the conversation I was most definitely referring to myself as well. Typical of someone who has no understanding of context, meaning, debate and conversation, words have context to the scope of what is being said at that very moment.

Do I think I am better than you? Most definitely I am.
Do I think I am better than the rest of your Klansmen buddies? You damn right I do.

Just as you fucking hypocrites do of me. See how that works? Bitch.

You bore me.

 

[see4]

Sales tax is through a voluntary transaction. A higher sales tax as opposed to a higher income tax curbs reckless spending and encourages more saving.

Has this been proven out somewhere else?

 

[whitebb2727]

Don't know about TN but when I grew up in MI, there was no sales tax on food, I think it's changed now though.

Sales tax is through a voluntary transaction. A higher sales tax as opposed to a higher income tax curbs reckless spending and encourages more saving. Something that long term is the best for our country's economics. With interest rates at near zero and easy loans, we are currently doing it the opposite, that only props things up temporarily. When the credit bubble bursts, it may make the housing bubble seem minor.

OK. That makes sense. I wasn't saying I agreed with one over the other. Its just people on both sides want it the other way.

 

[ginwilly]

Has this been proven out somewhere else?

Sure. The part you left out was interest rates affecting saving/borrowing, history has shown that, I hope you don't need a graph comparing what we used to save when rates were higher compared to when rates were lower.

As far as the part you quoted, it's just conjecture on my part. I know there are many things I wouldn't buy at a rate of 25% higher even though I'm keeping 25% more of my money. Just a theory, at this time an unprovable one. I don't think it would matter to people who are not good with money as evidenced by the title loan and buy here pay here rent to own type places doing so well.

 

[ginwilly]

OK. That makes sense. I wasn't saying I agreed with one over the other. Its just people on both sides want it the other way.

Grass is always greener. Great analogy with the curly hair, so true.

 

[see4]

Sure. The part you left out was interest rates affecting saving/borrowing, history has shown that, I hope you don't need a graph comparing what we used to save when rates were higher compared to when rates were lower.

As far as the part you quoted, it's just conjecture on my part. I know there are many things I wouldn't buy at a rate of 25% higher even though I'm keeping 25% more of my money. Just a theory, at this time an unprovable one. I don't think it would matter to people who are not good with money as evidenced by the title loan and buy here pay here rent to own type places doing so well.

My main concern with consumption tax is that the poor demographic would be taxed incredibly high proportional to their income where the wealthiest demographic would be taxed incredibly low proportional, even in a progressive tax system.

John earns $35,000 a year, of which $6,000 a year goes to food, $1,200 to car insurance, $3,600 to car payments, $12,000 goes to rent, $6,000 goes to bills, another $3,600 for health and dental insurance, which leaves $2,600 a year for everything else including savings. Poor John hasn't been able to have any fun, so he spends another $2,000 a year on leisure and entertainment, leaving him with $600 for savings. His consumption tax would be nearly 95%.

Ernie earns $225,000 a year, of which $8,000 a year goes to food, $2,500 to car insurance, $10,000 to car payments, $36,000 goes to mortgage, $11,000 goes to bills, another $4,000 for health and dental insurance, and this dude has a blast and spends $10,000 a year on leisure and sex parties. After this, Ernie is left with $143,500 left over for savings. His consumption tax would be 36%.

John purchases out of necessity, Ernie does it out of leisure. Consumption tax help the rich get richer. Maybe someone has a better way of explaining it to show that I'm not right in my assumption?

 

[ginwilly]

My main concern with consumption tax is that the poor demographic would be taxed incredibly high proportional to their income where the wealthiest demographic would be taxed incredibly low proportional, even in a progressive tax system.

John earns $35,000 a year, of which $6,000 a year goes to food, $1,200 to car insurance, $3,600 to car payments, $12,000 goes to rent, $6,000 goes to bills, another $3,600 for health and dental insurance, which leaves $2,600 a year for everything else including savings. Poor John hasn't been able to have any fun, so he spends another $2,000 a year on leisure and entertainment, leaving him with $600 for savings. His consumption tax would be nearly 95%.

Ernie earns $225,000 a year, of which $8,000 a year goes to food, $2,500 to car insurance, $10,000 to car payments, $36,000 goes to mortgage, $11,000 goes to bills, another $4,000 for health and dental insurance, and this dude has a blast and spends $10,000 a year on leisure and sex parties. After this, Ernie is left with $143,500 left over for savings. His consumption tax would be 36%.

John purchases out of necessity, Ernie does it out of leisure. Consumption tax help the rich get richer. Maybe someone has a better way of explaining it to show that I'm not right in my assumption?

You can make a consumption tax as progressive as you want. No tax on regular food or clothing items, tax on caviar and designer clothes. You can make anything under 100 tax free, 100-1000 20%, items over 100K 40% if you want.

You can still use the tax code to social engineer if that's what people want by taxing junk food while no tax on fruit and veggies.

What Neil Boortz was calling for with the Fair Tax is exactly what you described and I agree it would hit poor disproportionately. That was only one suggestion, there are many possibilities.

 

[see4]

You can make a consumption tax as progressive as you want. No tax on regular food or clothing items, tax on caviar and designer clothes. You can make anything under 100 tax free, 100-1000 20%, items over 100K 40% if you want.

You can still use the tax code to social engineer if that's what people want by taxing junk food while no tax on fruit and veggies.

What Neil Boortz was calling for with the Fair Tax is exactly what you described and I agree it would hit poor disproportionately. That was only one suggestion, there are many possibilities.

And that it is the responsibility of the businesses to collect and report the tax? Service businesses, how would they report tax?

I'm not averse to the idea of consumptive taxation at face value, I need to do more research to understand the pros and cons.

 

[see4]

You can make a consumption tax as progressive as you want. No tax on regular food or clothing items, tax on caviar and designer clothes. You can make anything under 100 tax free, 100-1000 20%, items over 100K 40% if you want.

You can still use the tax code to social engineer if that's what people want by taxing junk food while no tax on fruit and veggies.

What Neil Boortz was calling for with the Fair Tax is exactly what you described and I agree it would hit poor disproportionately. That was only one suggestion, there are many possibilities.

RestrainedRadical over at economist.com said the following:

The consumption tax is likely to fall because it's hard to grasp. It took me countless hours to understand all the various methods and consequences. I'll address the various methods of collection.

erwinhaaslibertarian, there was nobody more excited than me when I saw the FairTax proposal. Then I actually read it. The problems are many. First, the rate is actually 30%. The say 23% because it's 23% of the post-tax price which is actually 30% of the pre-tax price. It's bad form to include the tax in calculating the tax. But that's a minor quibble. The bigger problem is that a 30% tax plus state and local taxes can push the total tax towards 50%. Collect 50% at a single POS? You're begging for tax evasion and a black market.

A VAT is the FairTax collected at every point along the supply chain. It makes evasion much harder because what you report has to match whatever your supplier or buyer reports.

With both of these methods you can achieve progressivity by either excepting certain goods or providing a rebate. Excepting goods is a bad idea. It requires central planning. Do you exempt fast food? If not, what if it's a salad? Do you exempt housing? Up to what point? Do you exempt cell phone service? Text messages? Standard rebates is the best method.

There are many ways to rebate. You can have people report income but that's complex. You can mail everyone a check but then you can only have 2 tax brackets: 0% and x%. I like the method of a digital VAT where everyone gets a rebate card which they use like a shopper's card. It applies the discount at the point of sale. As you spend more, the discounts shrink until you stop receiving a discount altogether. I realize that the biggest problem with this method is logistics and privacy concerns. You'd have to have all retailers accept these cards. Consumers may be wary of the government tracking your purchases.

There's the USA tax which is the oldest of the proposed national consumption taxes. It's the one laid out in the article. You report income as you do now but you can deduct all your savings. Savings would have to be placed in qualifying accounts to make verification easier.

Finally, the least disruptive consumption tax would be our current income tax but with no capital gains, dividend, interest, gift, or estate tax. So instead of not taxing your savings until you consume it. It taxes all your savings now but not when you consume it (i.e., realize gains, dividends, or interest, or bequeath your assets). This consumption tax is the one that gets most tripped up. It is as much of a consumption tax as a sales tax, it's just collected differently.

 

[ginwilly]

And that it is the responsibility of the businesses to collect and report the tax? Service businesses, how would they report tax?

I'm not averse to the idea of consumptive taxation at face value, I need to do more research to understand the pros and cons.

The biggest con I see is the likely development of a huge black market. That's the downfall.

It would be reported the same way sales tax is reported now.

Anything we can to do to eliminate or severely curtail the IRS cartel should be considered. I think we all can agree the IRS has become a monster.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 was interesting in theory, but if anyone thinks that it wouldn't eventually be 20-20-20 isn't paying attention. A VAT is not what I'm calling for, that would be on top of income tax, I would like to replace it.

 

[ginwilly]

RestrainedRadical over at economist.com said the following:

The consumption tax is likely to fall because it's hard to grasp. It took me countless hours to understand all the various methods and consequences. I'll address the various methods of collection.

erwinhaaslibertarian, there was nobody more excited than me when I saw the FairTax proposal. Then I actually read it. The problems are many. First, the rate is actually 30%. The say 23% because it's 23% of the post-tax price which is actually 30% of the pre-tax price. It's bad form to include the tax in calculating the tax. But that's a minor quibble. The bigger problem is that a 30% tax plus state and local taxes can push the total tax towards 50%. Collect 50% at a single POS? You're begging for tax evasion and a black market.

A VAT is the FairTax collected at every point along the supply chain. It makes evasion much harder because what you report has to match whatever your supplier or buyer reports.

With both of these methods you can achieve progressivity by either excepting certain goods or providing a rebate. Excepting goods is a bad idea. It requires central planning. Do you exempt fast food? If not, what if it's a salad? Do you exempt housing? Up to what point? Do you exempt cell phone service? Text messages? Standard rebates is the best method.

There are many ways to rebate. You can have people report income but that's complex. You can mail everyone a check but then you can only have 2 tax brackets: 0% and x%. I like the method of a digital VAT where everyone gets a rebate card which they use like a shopper's card. It applies the discount at the point of sale. As you spend more, the discounts shrink until you stop receiving a discount altogether. I realize that the biggest problem with this method is logistics and privacy concerns. You'd have to have all retailers accept these cards. Consumers may be wary of the government tracking your purchases.

There's the USA tax which is the oldest of the proposed national consumption taxes. It's the one laid out in the article. You report income as you do now but you can deduct all your savings. Savings would have to be placed in qualifying accounts to make verification easier.

Finally, the least disruptive consumption tax would be our current income tax but with no capital gains, dividend, interest, gift, or estate tax. So instead of not taxing your savings until you consume it. It taxes all your savings now but not when you consume it (i.e., realize gains, dividends, or interest, or bequeath your assets). This consumption tax is the one that gets most tripped up. It is as much of a consumption tax as a sales tax, it's just collected differently.

Dude makes some valid points but if the Fair Tax is too complicated for him to understand how on earth can he understand the gajillion page tax code we are presently under? I think his bias leads him to conclusions you wouldn't make with an open mind.

Seriously, compare the complexities of the Fair Tax to our tax code.

 

[see4]

Dude makes some valid points but if the Fair Tax is too complicated for him to understand how on earth can he understand the gajillion page tax code we are presently under? I think his bias leads him to conclusions you wouldn't make with an open mind.

Seriously, compare the complexities of the Fair Tax to our tax code.

I will be the first to say our current tax code is a cluster fuck of bullshit and shit stains with splashes of "because fuck you" all over the place.

And doing further reading, I can certainly see how a massive black market would almost immediately pop up. After federal gets theirs, state will want theirs too, a $20 DVD now costs $30, a $12,000 Polaris now costs $18,000!!!

Almost like we would no longer have a war on drugs, but now a war on goods. Scary thought.

 

[ginwilly]

I will be the first to say our current tax code is a cluster fuck of bullshit and shit stains with splashes of "because fuck you" all over the place.

And doing further reading, I can certainly see how a massive black market would almost immediately pop up. After federal gets theirs, state will want theirs too, a $20 DVD now costs $30, a $12,000 Polaris now costs $18,000!!!

Almost like we would no longer have a war on drugs, but now a war on goods. Scary thought.

True, but you make 50K and you bring home 50K instead of 40K. It would definitely alter spending habits though, our fragile economy would struggle in the short term. I see long term benefits of people being able to save and less frivolous spending, but that's all that is keeping us going right now.

That 10Million dollar 2nd beach home would now be 13M. The upgrade to the G5 would be 10Million more. The incentive would be to expand the business instead because it would be cheaper in the long run. Imagine a system where the company "think tank meeting" held in Maui was taxed at 25% instead of actually written off the way it is now. Currently the private jet is a business expense written off, with a consumption tax it's taxed and taxed heavily.

You claim to own a 2nd home so I"m sure you are aware that you can put it up for rent for an amount nobody in their right mind would rent for and still be able to write off any upgrades and visits as business costs. People scream a consumption tax would benefit the wealthy more while what we already have does that in spades.

 

[UncleBuck]

I would prefer Paul over any

then why do you say you support marriage equality, the environment, legalization, and pro choice?

you clearly don't if you think he best represents those values.

 

[UncleBuck]

Don't know about TN but when I grew up in MI, there was no sales tax on food, I think it's changed now though.

Sales tax is through a voluntary transaction. A higher sales tax as opposed to a higher income tax curbs reckless spending and encourages more saving. Something that long term is the best for our country's economics. With interest rates at near zero and easy loans, we are currently doing it the opposite, that only props things up temporarily. When the credit bubble bursts, it may make the housing bubble seem minor.

your idea of a consumption tax is regressive, punitive, and retarded.

 

[see4]

True, but you make 50K and you bring home 50K instead of 40K. It would definitely alter spending habits though, our fragile economy would struggle in the short term. I see long term benefits of people being able to save and less frivolous spending, but that's all that is keeping us going right now.

That 10Million dollar 2nd beach home would now be 13M. The upgrade to the G5 would be 10Million more. The incentive would be to expand the business instead because it would be cheaper in the long run. Imagine a system where the company "think tank meeting" held in Maui was taxed at 25% instead of actually written off the way it is now. Currently the private jet is a business expense written off, with a consumption tax it's taxed and taxed heavily.

You claim to own a 2nd home so I"m sure you are aware that you can put it up for rent for an amount nobody in their right mind would rent for and still be able to write off any upgrades and visits as business costs.

Do we tax homes? If you do, you have to tax renters. If you tax renters, we would be sticking it to the poor man. If you don't you encourage a nation of renters. If you don't take either, I'm not sure there would be enough income for government to fully run. (In the sense of either real estate sales tax or property tax)

What would be the advantage of putting my home(s) up for rent beyond a reasonable amount? Rental income would not be taxed. Only the consumption of it would be.

 

[UncleBuck]

...conjecture... theory... unprovable...

no shit?