Economy

Rant

Tax Reform Part 3 - Sin Taxes

Posted 4 months ago|5 comments|271 views
The Haves and the Have Nots
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
During the next year Congress should consider comprehensive tax reform. Most of the Republican candidates would keep the Bush Tax Cuts permanently. Most of them also have plans that would lower Capital Gains Taxes, Corporate Taxes, and taxes on the rich, and shift the tax burden onto the middle class with national sales taxes or flat taxes. http://www.ctj.org/election2012/gopprima...

Those tax plans all help the 1% and hurt the 99%.

What would a tax plan for the 99% look like?

The most popular type of tax that is acceptable to most people, are "Sin Taxes" like tobacco taxes or alcohol taxes. These serve a triple purpose. They raise revenue, the higher costs discourage the use of the harmful substances, and the revenue generated can be used in programs to discourage the harmful behavior.

We should expand that form of tax to many other areas. We should tax all harmful substances to raise revenue, to discourage their use, and to help find safe alternatives.

The best application would be a simple carbon tax on all fossil fuels, to reduce greenhouse gases, and to promote clean safe renewable energy.

Every year environmental pollutants and toxic chemicals costs families $77 billion a year when their children get sick, because of the pollution. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2011/...

The costs of Climate change are projected to increase each year until in 2100 we will be paying $1.9 trillion a year. http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/c...

Similar taxes should be levied against nuclear material and toxic waste, to discourage their use, and find safe ways to dispose of them.

Similar taxes should be levied against trans fats, sugar, and other harmful foods, additives, and harmful chemicals to help people remain healthy and to reduce health costs.

Perhaps the most harmful activity in this country is the influence of special interest money on politics. Apparently the Supreme Court has declared that special interest money is protected as speech by the 1st amendment. That speech may be protected but it doesn't have to be free. Why can't we tax all lobbying, campaign contributions, and donations to Super PACs? If we taxed all of these efforts at 50% they would still have access and be able to influence the politicians, but the tax would discourage this harmful activity, and the money could go into a pot that would pay for support, ads, and televised debates, especially those who refuse to take special interest money, so non millionaires that haven't sold their souls to special interests would have a chance to run for office.

There are two kinds of wealth in this country Real Wealth and Phantom Wealth.

"Real wealth has intrinsic value. Examples include fertile land, healthful food, knowledge, productive labor, pure water and clean air, labor, and physical infrastructure. The most important forms of real wealth are beyond price and are unavailable for market purchase. These include healthy, happy children, loving families, caring communities, a beautiful, healthy, natural environment."

Phantom wealth or "Money, a number on a piece of paper or created with an accounting entery, has no intrinsic value. Wall Street generates it in astonishing quantities through accounting tricks, financial bubbles, and debt pyramids. It appears from nowhere and can disappear in an instant, as a phantom in the night."
http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-k...

A tiny Financial Transaction Tax would discourage financial speculation, and would curb algorithmic super fast computer trading, where stocks trade hands hundreds of times a minute. It would also curb the practice of leveraging. Currently bankers and traders can leverage their actual wealth by 20-30 times. The 4 banks that we bailed out because they were "Too Big To Fail" only have $5 trillion dollars, but they have $ 236 trillion of derivatives on their books. This is a 50 to 1 leverage. $236 trillion is an amazing amount considering the total GDP of the entire world is only $60 trillion! The world economy could collapse again if everyone wanted to cash in those derivatives because that money doesn't exist except on ledger books. It is Phantom Wealth. If the banks are going to use imaginary money they should be willing to pay a tiny transaction tax on those funds. http://usawatchdog.com/four-biggest-bank...

Wall Street is 40% of the economy. They created the economic collapse so they should help solve the problem. A tiny .03% Financial Transaction Tax (just 3 cents for every $100) could generate $15 billion a year. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index...

Europe is proposing a larger .05% FTT or "Robin Hood Tax" that would generate $72 billion a year. A European FT would be more effective if the US joined in, so European traders wouldn't just move to our markets. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-09...

The "Robin Hood Tax" is so small that 99% of the people wouldn't feel it at all, and the 1% can well afford it. It will just put a bit of "skin in the game" to dampen rampant speculation and reduce volatility. So why don't we eliminate all of the other taxes and just have a Financial Transaction Tax on any transactions?

An Automated Payment Transaction Tax of 0.6%, (6 cents for $10 purchase) could replace all federal and state income, corporate, excise, and estate taxes. See: http://www.apttax.com

This tax would be automatically deducted by the banks, every time money is moved, just like a small bank fee. It is very simple, no tax forms and no tax preparation is required, and there would be no cheating. If international corporations did business in the US they would be taxed .6% every time money changed hands. They wouldn't be able to escape taxes by having dummy offices on a Pacific island.

Everyone would just pay 6 cents for every ten dollars spent, but that wouldn't add up to much for the 99% because they just pay for basic needs. The 1% on the other hand would pay the same rate but it would add up to much more because they are constantly moving and leveraging their millions to earn more. Proponents of Flat taxes say people would have to pay $2-$3 for every $10 spent, to provide the same revenue. The flat taxes would tax mostly real wealth while the Automated Payment Transaction tax would mostly tax phantom wealth.

The 99% should get behind the tax policies that are the least painful for them, and which help the economy the most.


EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
4 months ago: The so-called sin tax is a self defeating proposition. If it is truly designed to discourage the harmful behavior, if successful, the revenue source dries up. But, hey, why not? A television tax, cell phone tax, processed food tax, stress tax, bad gene tax, another tax on healthcare workers for exposing themselves to the diseases of others, ...


"...Why can't we tax all lobbying, campaign contributions, and donations to Super PACs?..."

Because the unions wouldn't allow it. As much as corporations are viewed as "people", rich and powerful unions use their might to influence legislation. Face it, one special interest group is not any more entitled to a voice in government than the next.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The national transaction tax is the way to go. Better than a flat tax, no loopholes, no exclusions. That taxes what should be taxed, the use of the currency, not the ownership of property or the exercising of ones right to make a living.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
4 months ago: It is true that tobacco taxes have decreased the use of tobacco so that tax might have to be increased as the usage goes down until no one smokes anymore. On the other hand reduced tobacco use results in health care costs going down so we don't need as much revenue from that source anymore.

Likewise our interstate highway system is payed for by gas taxes. As the cost of gas goes up the usage goes down and we get more efficient cars that use less gas so the revenue spirals down while the highways need more and more revenue. Sometimes we need to come up with other revenue sources, or keep raising the gas tax till people take trains and ride bikes, then we won't need so many highways.

Something like 84% of the people think the corporations have too much influence on government. That includes those who belong to unions. Unions are democratic and if the union members vote not to fight having their political action funds taxed everyone would be happy.

The only reason unions spend a lot on political action is because they are the only ones standing up for the people.

Unions have been very helpful in working to cut their own wages and benefits because of the budget cuts. The union workers realize that taking a pay cut is better than loosing a job altogether.

You are right that the Robin Hood Tax, or Financial Transaction Tax is by far the best way to generate revenue. It is opposed by Wall Street which owns most politicians though.

Fortunately my representative Peter Defazio is one of the few who haven't been bought off. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/busine...
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
4 months ago: I disagree with the term "Robin Hood Tax" when referring to a financial transaction tax. Unlike Robin Hood, who stole from the rich to give those ill gotten gains to the poor, the Financial Transaction Tax would steal equally among all people, according to each person's usage of the currency.
And, like a sin tax, people would figure out ways to bundle financial transactions, defer payments pending receipts, and generally reduce the creation of new fiat wealth. Inflation would slow, monetary value would stabilize, and the government would never want that. The slower that inflation increases, the more actual wealth that the government has to pay back.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
4 months ago: How many poor people do you know who speculate on foreign currency (they have no money to speculate with).

Forex trading is between $3 and $4 trillion a day, hardly any of it is from personal trades. The traders often only have 10% of the money and borrow 90%. Having a tiny .05% fee would hardly be called Stealing, but it would generate billions each day that would be taken from the rich and used to help the entire nation. Even the rich would benefit if the poor started spending more, which would rejuvenate the economy, and all of the jobs created would lower the debt because then the poor could pay taxes and get off from government services.

The FTT would be the best way to get the economy again because it wouldn't slow down the economy or cost any jobs, in fact the revenue generated would generate many jobs and revitalize the economy.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
4 months ago: That's the beauty of the FTT. It doesn't only apply to currency speculation. It would (hopefully) be applied to every transfer of funds in or out of a financial institution. The stores would be charged to deposit their daily take into the bank, therefore they would pass the tax along to the customer in the form of slightly higher prices. This way, everyone has some "skin" in the game, and no one is getting a free ride.

Just because those that are dealing in large sums of money (and taking a large risk) might be able to float the entire bill, it doesn't mean that they should. I would feel like less of a man if I wasn't contributing my fair share.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.