|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 22 2026 01:54 Sermokala wrote:If you read this story you'll find out that they were already charged for fraud earlier, and this is just another set of charges after the already happening investigation continued. Nothing of value came from nick Shirleys video, children were kidnapped and others were killed for it. On legitimate news www.startribune.com The first ICE officer to be charged for the invasion is turning himself in for his crimes. Heres hopeing more are charged as a result.
You had to read the story to find out she was already charged in the Feeding our Future fraud? That's the first thing I said. It's right there plain as day. How do you miss that?
They are separate investigations because Feeding Our Future is not a daycare, many of those defendants had no daycares, and other people are charged in daycare fraud who never had anything to do with the Feeding Our Future organization. Unless you think all fraud in the US is just under one ongoing investigation.
Children will continue to be "kidnapped" as long as the federal government has to take parents who do illegal things into custody, because the federal government is not in the business of just setting children loose in the streets if their family is arrested.
|
On May 22 2026 02:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 01:54 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2026 13:50 oBlade wrote:Speaking of charges, one of the Feeding Our Future fraud defendants in Minnesota was just charged with $4.6 million in wire fraud after her daycare operation closed shortly after being exposed in a Nick Shirley video. If you read this story you'll find out that they were already charged for fraud earlier, and this is just another set of charges after the already happening investigation continued. Nothing of value came from nick Shirleys video, children were kidnapped and others were killed for it. On legitimate news www.startribune.com The first ICE officer to be charged for the invasion is turning himself in for his crimes. Heres hopeing more are charged as a result. You had to read the story to find out she was already charged in the Feeding our Future fraud? That's the first thing I said. It's right there plain as day. How do you miss that? They are separate investigations because Feeding Our Future is not a daycare, many of those defendants had no daycares, and other people are charged in daycare fraud who never had anything to do with the Feeding Our Future organization. Unless you think all fraud in the US is just under one ongoing investigation. Children will continue to be "kidnapped" as long as the federal government has to take parents who do illegal things into custody, because the federal government is not in the business of just setting children loose in the streets if their family is arrested.
I mean kidnapping kids and taking them to a texas detention facility being the cost of doing business was not on my bucket list but I should have expected that. You would think a child is blameless for the acts of their parents or something could be done to minimize child abuse but I guess ICE is just following orders.
I can't imagine how you look at the world. Do you think people launch entirely separate and isolated investigations of crimes on the same defendant? Do you think the human being can't handle investigating two different kinds of fraud at the same time? Yes Oblade when you're under investigation they're going to investigate you for any other kind of fraud that you're doing. Charging you with one crime that they can prove so they can procue evidence on other crimes is stuff they put in TV and movies.
|
On May 22 2026 03:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 02:43 oBlade wrote:On May 22 2026 01:54 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2026 13:50 oBlade wrote:Speaking of charges, one of the Feeding Our Future fraud defendants in Minnesota was just charged with $4.6 million in wire fraud after her daycare operation closed shortly after being exposed in a Nick Shirley video. If you read this story you'll find out that they were already charged for fraud earlier, and this is just another set of charges after the already happening investigation continued. Nothing of value came from nick Shirleys video, children were kidnapped and others were killed for it. On legitimate news www.startribune.com The first ICE officer to be charged for the invasion is turning himself in for his crimes. Heres hopeing more are charged as a result. You had to read the story to find out she was already charged in the Feeding our Future fraud? That's the first thing I said. It's right there plain as day. How do you miss that? They are separate investigations because Feeding Our Future is not a daycare, many of those defendants had no daycares, and other people are charged in daycare fraud who never had anything to do with the Feeding Our Future organization. Unless you think all fraud in the US is just under one ongoing investigation. Children will continue to be "kidnapped" as long as the federal government has to take parents who do illegal things into custody, because the federal government is not in the business of just setting children loose in the streets if their family is arrested. I mean kidnapping kids and taking them to a texas detention facility being the cost of doing business was not on my bucket list but I should have expected that. You would think a child is blameless for the acts of their parents or something could be done to minimize child abuse but I guess ICE is just following orders.
Bucket list lol. Probably not the list metaphor you meant.
We have some more common ground than I thought, I had just assumed you were one of the people who thought parents were blameless for the acts of themselves to begin with. As long as you're okay with arresting the parents, what's your policy solution for dealing with minors in the family without what you see as kidnapping/abuse?
|
On May 22 2026 04:08 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 03:53 Sermokala wrote:On May 22 2026 02:43 oBlade wrote:On May 22 2026 01:54 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2026 13:50 oBlade wrote:Speaking of charges, one of the Feeding Our Future fraud defendants in Minnesota was just charged with $4.6 million in wire fraud after her daycare operation closed shortly after being exposed in a Nick Shirley video. If you read this story you'll find out that they were already charged for fraud earlier, and this is just another set of charges after the already happening investigation continued. Nothing of value came from nick Shirleys video, children were kidnapped and others were killed for it. On legitimate news www.startribune.com The first ICE officer to be charged for the invasion is turning himself in for his crimes. Heres hopeing more are charged as a result. You had to read the story to find out she was already charged in the Feeding our Future fraud? That's the first thing I said. It's right there plain as day. How do you miss that? They are separate investigations because Feeding Our Future is not a daycare, many of those defendants had no daycares, and other people are charged in daycare fraud who never had anything to do with the Feeding Our Future organization. Unless you think all fraud in the US is just under one ongoing investigation. Children will continue to be "kidnapped" as long as the federal government has to take parents who do illegal things into custody, because the federal government is not in the business of just setting children loose in the streets if their family is arrested. I mean kidnapping kids and taking them to a texas detention facility being the cost of doing business was not on my bucket list but I should have expected that. You would think a child is blameless for the acts of their parents or something could be done to minimize child abuse but I guess ICE is just following orders. Bucket list lol. Probably not the list metaphor you meant. We have some more common ground than I thought, I had just assumed you were one of the people who thought parents were blameless for the acts of themselves to begin with. As long as you're okay with arresting the parents, what's your policy solution for dealing with minors in the family without what you see as kidnapping/abuse?
There are no policy solutions to the type of cases you mention, at least in serious countries. In cases where the parents aren't straight up a danger to their children, arresting them is able to cause greater damage than managing the situation in other ways. Of course, some might try to exploit that advantage.
Sometimes the menace is the society they grow up in. Hoodkid getting their parents arrested and growing up in an orphanage full of hoodkids isn't really going to be an upgrade.
And their parents aren't able to fund them through their own activites anymore.
I'm guessing that's an army recruiter hotspot.
There's also the case where the people monitoring these things are idiots, or exploiters who convenienty make them offers at their own companies.
Others monitor you and abuse their position to sneak damages into your life. Because they don‘t want you to have it.
|
On May 22 2026 04:08 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 03:53 Sermokala wrote:On May 22 2026 02:43 oBlade wrote:On May 22 2026 01:54 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2026 13:50 oBlade wrote:Speaking of charges, one of the Feeding Our Future fraud defendants in Minnesota was just charged with $4.6 million in wire fraud after her daycare operation closed shortly after being exposed in a Nick Shirley video. If you read this story you'll find out that they were already charged for fraud earlier, and this is just another set of charges after the already happening investigation continued. Nothing of value came from nick Shirleys video, children were kidnapped and others were killed for it. On legitimate news www.startribune.com The first ICE officer to be charged for the invasion is turning himself in for his crimes. Heres hopeing more are charged as a result. You had to read the story to find out she was already charged in the Feeding our Future fraud? That's the first thing I said. It's right there plain as day. How do you miss that? They are separate investigations because Feeding Our Future is not a daycare, many of those defendants had no daycares, and other people are charged in daycare fraud who never had anything to do with the Feeding Our Future organization. Unless you think all fraud in the US is just under one ongoing investigation. Children will continue to be "kidnapped" as long as the federal government has to take parents who do illegal things into custody, because the federal government is not in the business of just setting children loose in the streets if their family is arrested. I mean kidnapping kids and taking them to a texas detention facility being the cost of doing business was not on my bucket list but I should have expected that. You would think a child is blameless for the acts of their parents or something could be done to minimize child abuse but I guess ICE is just following orders. Bucket list lol. Probably not the list metaphor you meant. We have some more common ground than I thought, I had just assumed you were one of the people who thought parents were blameless for the acts of themselves to begin with. As long as you're okay with arresting the parents, what's your policy solution for dealing with minors in the family without what you see as kidnapping/abuse?
No its the list metaphor I meant.
Thats a pretty insane thing to assume about other people. No one thinks the immigration system is functional as we are what we disagree with is if an immigrant is a human being who has value and deserves respect. Also that we live in a nation with the 5th Amendment, but that's a different bag of cats.
You find their relatives in the state where they come from so they can keep going back to their school. Liams mom was just not at the home at the time so ICE decided to ship him to a detention facility across the nation. If that fails a foster home, you know basic human empathy for children. I don't know where you get as a person where taking a child from their home and locking them up in a facility more than a thousand miles away is an aceptable outcome.
|
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person.
|
On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person.
Why? Please explain.
|
The project to make Americans stupid and proudly ignorant has been going on for a long, long time. Every now and then when Trump appoints some fuckface like RFK Jr. I post the Demon Hunted world quote from Sagan, today, I ran into this article and this quote:
“Science is more than a body of knowledge, it’s a way of thinking,” he says. “A way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes ambling along.”
And now we have people defending the POTUS proudly using fucking basic math like percentages completely wrong, and when people make fun of them, other folks coming to berate them for being mean.
That's how we got here, god forbid that a stupid motherfucker is called out, we should all be polite and learn their "alternative math" in order to accommodate them, everything else is mocking and gawking.
It is, after all, elitist and mean to know math.
It's funny because Jan 21st 2017 it was kind of obvious where this shit is going, but in my wildest dream I couldn't imagine that alternative facts crowd would be the ones coddled when they try to defend the proud ignorance of the president of United States.
|
On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person.
Fresh off the presses, the person most offended by people being mean to Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated calls for execution and imprisonment of about a third of the population.
Cherry on the cake, he does it to defend billionaires. Jesus.
|
On May 22 2026 05:10 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person. Fresh off the presses, the person most offended by people being mean to Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated calls for execution and imprisonment of about a third of the population. Cherry on the cake, he does it to defend billionaires. Jesus.
Reminder that conservatives don't care that they're hypocrites, they want to live in a world where ethics and consistency are things that bind their perceived lessers
|
United States44012 Posts
On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person.
It literally already exists as part of the US tax code. Maybe you should stick to areas you know things about.
|
On May 22 2026 05:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person. Why? Please explain.
Because private companies are exempt and thats were all the people you want to tax would keep their money. You would actually tax all the middle class people and what you would achieve would be nearly impossible barrier for people to became actually rich, you would in effect create in essence nobility to which you can be born but cant earn your way to it. Lets say you took a mortgage to buy a house and over 2 years time you got lucky and house value tripled. You took a mortgage to buy it, still paying it (after 2 years mostly interest) and then you also have to pay tax on double the value of what house initially cost, it would just flat out bankrupt some. Thats for unrealised gain tax.
As for wealth tax - the fact that you are worth lets say 1kk and use UK inheritance tax for farmers (20%). technically taxed are going to be millionaires, until you take a closer look. Small piece of land, couple of cows, house and tractor and there you go, you are millionaire, this however not kind of fortune which makes sure that you have 20k casually lying around.
(Numbers here are just example)
This would pretty much abolish private property. Already every property you have to pay tax on eg: land, house despite of your ownership, you practically renting from government in perpetuity (as in they cant kick you out without valid reason and not paying tax is the very first of it) If all you have is taxable then this apply to everything else too.
On May 22 2026 05:10 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person. Fresh off the presses, the person most offended by people being mean to Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated calls for execution and imprisonment of about a third of the population. Cherry on the cake, he does it to defend billionaires. Jesus.
Imprisoning executed people is so very you.
I said "or".
Edit: sorry I said 20k because in UK you have 10 years to pay mentioned inheritance tax, if it was all at once it would be 200k.
|
On May 22 2026 05:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person. It literally already exists as part of the US tax code. Maybe you should stick to areas you know things about.
From what I searched it doesnt?
https://www.jacksonhewitt.com/tax-help/tax-tips-topics/personal-finance-savings/unrealized-gains-tax/
"There is currently no tax on unrealized gains."
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/wealth-tax-impact/
"Many developed countries have repealed their net wealth taxes in recent years. Among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, only four currently impose one: Colombia, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland."
Even if it was it doesnt affect my stance at all, the fact that some governments do something doesnt mean that it actually should be done.
|
You don't pay tax on land everywhere. You pay for communal/city services, irrespectively of your net worth. That's one way to get broke communes with a bunch of wealthy who usually get bailed out still profiting from running enterprises at the location.
|
There should only be one kind of tax.
Every time you move money between two entities you pay a tax on that. Regardless if it's a transaction, a bank transfer, a loan, buying a carrot, whatever.
The tax is very very small because the amount of money moved is very large. Google says ~$7 trillion+ dollars are moved in US banks and financial institutions every day. Total tax intake is $6,8 trillion. From that alone a 2,5% fee on every transaction would cover all taxes in the US.
I guess some taxes on goods you would like to reduce consumption on (alcohol, tobacco, sugar) could be taxed separately.
I'm sure there is some kind of problem I haven't thought about but at a first glance it seems extremely fair.
|
United States44012 Posts
On May 22 2026 06:25 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 05:49 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person. It literally already exists as part of the US tax code. Maybe you should stick to areas you know things about. From what I searched it doesnt? https://www.jacksonhewitt.com/tax-help/tax-tips-topics/personal-finance-savings/unrealized-gains-tax/"There is currently no tax on unrealized gains." https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/wealth-tax-impact/"Many developed countries have repealed their net wealth taxes in recent years. Among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, only four currently impose one: Colombia, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland." Even if it was it doesnt affect my stance at all, the fact that some governments do something doesnt mean that it actually should be done.
Okay but there is. I know about this stuff.
|
On May 22 2026 07:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 06:25 Razyda wrote:On May 22 2026 05:49 KwarK wrote:On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person. It literally already exists as part of the US tax code. Maybe you should stick to areas you know things about. From what I searched it doesnt? https://www.jacksonhewitt.com/tax-help/tax-tips-topics/personal-finance-savings/unrealized-gains-tax/"There is currently no tax on unrealized gains." https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/eu/wealth-tax-impact/"Many developed countries have repealed their net wealth taxes in recent years. Among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, only four currently impose one: Colombia, Norway, Spain, and Switzerland." Even if it was it doesnt affect my stance at all, the fact that some governments do something doesnt mean that it actually should be done. Okay but there is. I know about this stuff.
Fair enough, I am certainly not going to argue with you about the stuff you do for leaving, thats why I clarified that my searches returned nothing. I am sure there is some stuff which doesnt come easily in search, but you are well more knowledgeable on the matter.
This however doesnt change my position on whether those taxes should exist.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1296 Posts
On May 22 2026 06:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
There should only be one kind of tax.
Every time you move money between two entities you pay a tax on that. Regardless if it's a transaction, a bank transfer, a loan, buying a carrot, whatever.
The tax is very very small because the amount of money moved is very large. Google says ~$7 trillion+ dollars are moved in US banks and financial institutions every day. Total tax intake is $6,8 trillion. From that alone a 2,5% fee on every transaction would cover all taxes in the US.
I guess some taxes on goods you would like to reduce consumption on (alcohol, tobacco, sugar) could be taxed separately.
I'm sure there is some kind of problem I haven't thought about but at a first glance it seems extremely fair.
In a country where its poor citizens are not all in massive debt, this might work (other than the 2.5% number, that is massive, that's almost inflation for a whole year... in every transaction, I'm not sure if you meant 0.25% or less).
For people in debt, this is pretty onerous. You pay the tax when you put something on a credit card (which is pretty much everything for someone already in overall debt), then when you repay that loan, already paying the credit card's high interests, you are then taxed again on paying the debt.
Often people in debt are paying one credit card debt, with another credit card, in a chain so that the ones overdue are paid off with new ones... you can see how this is A LOT of tax. Yes everyone being in debt is already bad, but this method of taxation makes the problem much worse.
Aside from that, consumption taxes are regressive in nature, poorer people spend a greater portion of their income 'consuming' than the truly wealthy, it's hard to consume millions of dollars' worth of product annually without going out of your way to do it.
In fact, I take back the 'might work in a country where the poor are not in debt', even using a much smaller rate. The rich have options on how they manage their money, the poor have to spend it to survive. So the rich can just choose not to move a large portion of their wealth around much, aside from everyday consumption that has to happen, pretty much all of the poor people's money have to be moved around to pay for everyday things.
Aside from the repressiveness of this tax, there is also a velocity of money problem. You tend to tax the things you want to discourage. If you tax every transaction... you are discouraging people from making transactions... eg paying for things. If people are making fewer transactions... by definition you are slowing down the economy.
|
On May 22 2026 06:00 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 05:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person. Why? Please explain. Because private companies are exempt and thats were all the people you want to tax would keep their money. You would actually tax all the middle class people and what you would achieve would be nearly impossible barrier for people to became actually rich, you would in effect create in essence nobility to which you can be born but cant earn your way to it. Lets say you took a mortgage to buy a house and over 2 years time you got lucky and house value tripled. You took a mortgage to buy it, still paying it (after 2 years mostly interest) and then you also have to pay tax on double the value of what house initially cost, it would just flat out bankrupt some. Thats for unrealised gain tax. As for wealth tax - the fact that you are worth lets say 1kk and use UK inheritance tax for farmers (20%). technically taxed are going to be millionaires, until you take a closer look. Small piece of land, couple of cows, house and tractor and there you go, you are millionaire, this however not kind of fortune which makes sure that you have 20k casually lying around. (Numbers here are just example) This would pretty much abolish private property. Already every property you have to pay tax on eg: land, house despite of your ownership, you practically renting from government in perpetuity (as in they cant kick you out without valid reason and not paying tax is the very first of it) If all you have is taxable then this apply to everything else too. Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 05:10 Jankisa wrote:On May 22 2026 05:02 Razyda wrote:
Quite frankly, anyone advocating tax on unrealised gains, or wealth tax, for private individuals, should be either imprisoned, executed or put in mental asylum, because there is no helping such a person. Fresh off the presses, the person most offended by people being mean to Charlie Kirk after he was assassinated calls for execution and imprisonment of about a third of the population. Cherry on the cake, he does it to defend billionaires. Jesus. Imprisoning executed people is so very you. I said "or". Edit: sorry I said 20k because in UK you have 10 years to pay mentioned inheritance tax, if it was all at once it would be 200k.
It wouldn’t and doesn’t bankrupt people because there is always a threshold. People own shares in corps and those have value, which would be taxed. Or if privately held than based on the companies values.
Taxing wealth is probably the best way to tax the rich, they don’t like it because they can’t hide it like they can their income.
|
On May 22 2026 07:33 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2026 06:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
There should only be one kind of tax.
Every time you move money between two entities you pay a tax on that. Regardless if it's a transaction, a bank transfer, a loan, buying a carrot, whatever.
The tax is very very small because the amount of money moved is very large. Google says ~$7 trillion+ dollars are moved in US banks and financial institutions every day. Total tax intake is $6,8 trillion. From that alone a 2,5% fee on every transaction would cover all taxes in the US.
I guess some taxes on goods you would like to reduce consumption on (alcohol, tobacco, sugar) could be taxed separately.
I'm sure there is some kind of problem I haven't thought about but at a first glance it seems extremely fair. In a country where its poor citizens are not all in massive debt, this might work (other than the 2.5% number, that is massive, that's almost inflation for a whole year... in every transaction, I'm not sure if you meant 0.25% or less). For people in debt, this is pretty onerous. You pay the tax when you put something on a credit card (which is pretty much everything for someone already in overall debt), then when you repay that loan, already paying the credit card's high interests, you are then taxed again on paying the debt. Often people in debt are paying one credit card debt, with another credit card, in a chain so that the ones overdue are paid off with new ones... you can see how this is A LOT of tax. Yes everyone being in debt is already bad, but this method of taxation makes the problem much worse. Aside from that, consumption taxes are regressive in nature, poorer people spend a greater portion of their income 'consuming' than the truly wealthy, it's hard to consume millions of dollars' worth of product annually without going out of your way to do it. In fact, I take back the 'might work in a country where the poor are not in debt', even using a much smaller rate. The rich have options on how they manage their money, the poor have to spend it to survive. So the rich can just choose not to move a large portion of their wealth around much, aside from everyday consumption that has to happen, pretty much all of the poor people's money have to be moved around to pay for everyday things. Aside from the repressiveness of this tax, there is also a velocity of money problem. You tend to tax the things you want to discourage. If you tax every transaction... you are discouraging people from making transactions... eg paying for things. If people are making fewer transactions... by definition you are slowing down the economy.
I think you omitted this would replace existing sales tax/VAT and income tax. This is a significantly smaller consumption tax than the current ones, It would be a gigantic net positive for goods and services and for 99% of the population with Cuddly's figures. It's the financial market that would get destroyed by it in a difficult to predict end result.
And that's the problem, Cuddly uses total current transactions to calculate what % this universal transaction tax would need to be. But something like 99% of all transaction value is in the financial market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
