• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Robin Hood Tax Introduced In Congress

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
SUPPORTERS OF THE ROBIN HOOD TAX ARE FINALLY BEING HEARD. MINNESOTA CONGRESSMAN KEITH ELLISON INTRODUCED A BILL LAST MONTH THAT WOULD CHARGE HALF A PERCENT ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.IF PASSED, THE BILL WOULD GENERATE 350 BILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE EACH YEAR.

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT NEW TO THE IDEA OF A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION TAX. IT CAME INTO EFFECT UNDER WOODROW WILSON’S ADMINISTRATION IN 1914 AND THEN EVOLVED…AND BEGAN TO TAX THE MARKET VALUE OF EACH STOCK.BUT IN 1965, CONGRESS VOTED IT OUT WITH THE GENERAL VIEW THAT IT COMPLICATED SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. PROFESSOR ANGEL ARGUES THAT TAX HISTORY WOULD REPEAT ITSELF.

THE ROBIN HOOD TAX BILL BROUGHT FORTH BY REPRESENTATIVE ELLISON IS NOT THE FIRST OF ITS KIND. LAST NOVEMBER, DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES PETER DEFAZIO OF OREGON AND SENATOR TOM HARKIN, AN IOWA DEMOCRAT, PROPOSED A TAX THAT ONLY CALLED FOR A .03% FINANCIAL TAX.


http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9009

Seems like common sense to me. Im not gonna expect it to get very far in this country however.
 
It started in Europe. People are tired of the rich American bankers destroying economies and getting off scott free.
 
[/FONT][/COLOR]http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9009

Seems like common sense to me. Im not gonna expect it to get very far in this country however.

Seems like common sense to me, too. A 1% Federal tax on every sale except food would make sense to me, too. But, I'd like to see corresponding cuts to budgets that matched every tax increase so that we didn't just give our government more money to waste. Imagine the difference that would make.
 
Seems like common sense to me, too. A 1% Federal tax on every sale except food would make sense to me, too. But, I'd like to see corresponding cuts to budgets that matched every tax increase so that we didn't just give our government more money to waste. Imagine the difference that would make.

Yeah that would be bad. It would be such a headache for business owners that I don't think it would ever pass. It is kind of like the 1099 provision in Obamacare that got repealed--in theory it was a way to make sure small businesses reported things correctly on their taxes--in reality the IRS didn't want 100's of millions of extra 1099's to sort through every March.
 
Seems like common sense to me, too. A 1% Federal tax on every sale except food would make sense to me, too. But, I'd like to see corresponding cuts to budgets that matched every tax increase so that we didn't just give our government more money to waste. Imagine the difference that would make.

I'd rather see a stop to corporate farmers and the oil company and then INCREASE food stamps and Medicaid
 
Yeah that would be bad. It would be such a headache for business owners that I don't think it would ever pass. It is kind of like the 1099 provision in Obamacare that got repealed--in theory it was a way to make sure small businesses reported things correctly on their taxes--in reality the IRS didn't want 100's of millions of extra 1099's to sort through every March.

It may well pass down the line a ways. Our government is looking for $$. As for it being a huge headache for business owners? Give me a break. They're already paying state sales taxes, With computers, it'd take just the click of a button to determine one's liability. And another minute to write the check. This has nothing to do with 1099's.
 
I'd rather see a stop to corporate farmers and the oil company and then INCREASE food stamps and Medicaid

Why don't give to the poor on your own? You are free to do that.
 
Why don't give to the poor on your own? You are free to do that.

Charity is not an all the way around sufficient way to give people help that need it.
 
It may well pass down the line a ways. Our government is looking for $$. As for it being a huge headache for business owners? Give me a break. They're already paying state sales taxes, With computers, it'd take just the click of a button to determine one's liability. And another minute to write the check. This has nothing to do with 1099's.

Not all states have sales tax and not all businesses collect sales tax (think service economy). Who pays the sales tax on your mammogram under this program you or your insurance and is it collected on the billed amount, the amount actually paid, or just the amount you pay or the insurance pays? Are seniors going to be paying sales tax on the drugs they already struggle to buy? How much is it going to cost to run this program because you are going to need lots of auditors and enforcers. If I get injured in a car wreck and collect $10K do I get taxed on that now since I already have had to pay tax on the medical bills that were taxed? It would be far easier to just increase corporate taxes than have to deal with that crazy-scheme. If you don't pay your bill do I have to still pay your sales tax?
 
It's NOT a "Robin Hood" tax. It's just a new tax on everyone. And it doesn't take money from everyone and give it to the poor. It is the government taking money from everyone and gives it to the government.

As Pelosi and Reed said, the private sector is doing "just fine." It is the government that needs more jobs and income. That is the Democratic Party's main issue: More money for government by taking more money from the people." To take it from the "greedy non-government employment sector."
 
Why don't give to the poor on your own? You are free to do that.

Who says I don't? Why don't you support the military industrial complex research and development on your own?
 
Who says I don't? Why don't you support the military industrial complex research and development on your own?

Because it's a constitutional duty.
 
Not all states have sales tax and not all businesses collect sales tax (think service economy). Who pays the sales tax on your mammogram under this program you or your insurance and is it collected on the billed amount, the amount actually paid, or just the amount you pay or the insurance pays? Are seniors going to be paying sales tax on the drugs they already struggle to buy? How much is it going to cost to run this program because you are going to need lots of auditors and enforcers. If I get injured in a car wreck and collect $10K do I get taxed on that now since I already have had to pay tax on the medical bills that were taxed? It would be far easier to just increase corporate taxes than have to deal with that crazy-scheme. If you don't pay your bill do I have to still pay your sales tax?

Sorry I didn't bother to list exemptions. I looked it up, and there are only five states who don't have a sales tax. Hardly a good reason to scrap a good idea. Of course many of the things you listed would be exempt. A 1% tax on goods sold would be a slam dunk to administer. To try to make it complicated by all of your presumptions just shows you have a built-in bias to the idea.

You buy a diamond ring? You pay (an additional) 1% tax that goes to the Federal government. Buy food? Medicine? Services? You don't. It's not rocket science. And we're going to see it in the not-too-distant future. 1% hurts no one. Raises hundreds of billions of dollars.
 
It's NOT a "Robin Hood" tax. It's just a new tax on everyone. And it doesn't take money from everyone and give it to the poor. It is the government taking money from everyone and gives it to the government.

As Pelosi and Reed said, the private sector is doing "just fine." It is the government that needs more jobs and income. That is the Democratic Party's main issue: More money for government by taking more money from the people." To take it from the "greedy non-government employment sector."

I think they were referring to paying off the debt. But republicans are known to be big spenders, giving away our money so the rich can get more tax breaks. And the government DOES need to create more jobs so more people have good incomes to buy in the service industry who can then hire more people.
 
I think they were referring to paying off the debt. But republicans are known to be big spenders, giving away our money so the rich can get more tax breaks. And the government DOES need to create more jobs so more people have good incomes to buy in the service industry who can then hire more people.

So what you are saying is there needs to be more government jobs created? Maybe a million more in the Department of Homeland Security? :roll:
 
Why don't give to the poor on your own? You are free to do that.

We can't, because we have to save up enough to help our kids pay for the GOP military ejaculations and oil subsidies.
 
A tax on financial transactions is so destructive even our government hasn't imposed it yet.

And Robin Hood did not steel from the rich to give to the poor. He reclaimed what was forcefully taken from them by the royalty via taxes.
 
We can't, because we have to save up enough to help our kids pay for the GOP military ejaculations and oil subsidies.

I'm against oil subsidies, but why are they made such a big deal out of? They are relatively minimal compared to other subsidies.
 
I support a financial transaction tax; it would reduce some of the volatility in our markets and make another financial crisis less likely. However, if its supporters are advertising it as a "Robin Hood Tax" I can already tell you it's politically doomed.
 
Sorry I didn't bother to list exemptions. I looked it up, and there are only five states who don't have a sales tax. Hardly a good reason to scrap a good idea. Of course many of the things you listed would be exempt. A 1% tax on goods sold would be a slam dunk to administer. To try to make it complicated by all of your presumptions just shows you have a built-in bias to the idea.

You buy a diamond ring? You pay (an additional) 1% tax that goes to the Federal government. Buy food? Medicine? Services? You don't. It's not rocket science. And we're going to see it in the not-too-distant future. 1% hurts no one. Raises hundreds of billions of dollars.

My bias is that the way you presented your position would suggest that services that are not currently being taxed that are not already set up to pay taxes, would be bogged down with new tax issues that could be avoided by just increasing the income tax as we are increasingly a service based economy. There are some pretty stiff penalties for being even late with reporting/paying in taxes at the state and federal level already and it would be easier IMO to just raise rates or close loopholes on businesses than to add a whole new layer of IRS headaches for business.
 
My bias is that the way you presented your position would suggest that services that are not currently being taxed that are not already set up to pay taxes, would be bogged down with new tax issues that could be avoided by just increasing the income tax as we are increasingly a service based economy. There are some pretty stiff penalties for being even late with reporting/paying in taxes at the state and federal level already and it would be easier IMO to just raise rates or close loopholes on businesses than to add a whole new layer of IRS headaches for business.

I see and understand. But we probably need to do both. One isn't going to be enough to solve the mess we're in.
 
I support a financial transaction tax; it would reduce some of the volatility in our markets and make another financial crisis less likely. However, if its supporters are advertising it as a "Robin Hood Tax" I can already tell you it's politically doomed.

"Reduce some of the volatility in our markets"

There is no evidence of that. All it would do is make the market dramatically smaller, but that doesn't reduce the risks that are taken.

If anything creates a financial crisis, this tax would be it.
 
Back
Top Bottom