So i assumed the government know how much money

[Telstra]

is in your bank account and ALL bank accounts of other people/companies ....
Would you let the government take out money (5 to 10%) from your account IF
they also take out the money from all accounts (including big companies, churches, non profit organizations ... etc? Why or why not ?


I would be happy to let the government take out some money because i think it is fair for everyone.
(the rich pay more and the poor pay less)


Discuss ...

 

[Alnitak]

I don't really understand the question. A flat tax on bank accounts? First of all, anyone who keeps most of their assets in a bank account is either poor or needs a slap in the face from his financial advisor.

 

[Alistair]

Are you meaning to eliminate the debt? I think that if every person sacrificed one day of pay to the debt we'd end up with a surplus, or could stabilize social security. Even welfare recipients could gives up a day.

 

[Alnitak]

Are you meaning to eliminate the debt? I think that if every person sacrificed one day of pay to the debt we'd end up with a surplus, or could stabilize social security. Even welfare recipients could gives up a day.

US national debt is 6% of US assets valued at $269 trillion. It would be easily financed by the wealthy and corporations. Though, liquidity being carefully controlled by the federal reserve, paying all that debt in a short time could be very problematic for the economy.

 

[Telstra]

Are you meaning to eliminate the debt? I think that if every person sacrificed one day of pay to the debt we'd end up with a surplus, or could stabilize social security. Even welfare recipients could gives up a day.

No, for public social services ...

 

[Telstra]

I don't really understand the question. A flat tax on bank accounts? First of all, anyone who keeps most of their assets in a bank account is either poor or needs a slap in the face from his financial advisor.

I mean if you have $100 in your bank account, the government can take $5 from it.
If the bank has $1 trillion in its bank account, the government can take 5% from it. Is that fair ?

 

[Alistair]

No, for public social services ...

No then. We're already paying for social services. Im being responsible and saving money for my future retirement. Let the beggars get jobs instead of more hand outs

 

[Telstra]

No then. We're already paying for social services. Im being responsible and saving money for my future retirement. Let the beggars get jobs instead of more hand outs

Social services mean everything include infrastructure, emergency services, police ... etc

 

[rareboy]

US national debt is 6% of US assets valued at $269 trillion. It would be easily financed by the wealthy and corporations. Though, liquidity being carefully controlled by the federal reserve, paying all that debt in a short time could be very problematic for the economy.

This is an important point.

Few people understand how much economic activity depends on debt.

Debt provides huge number of people with employment.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

US national debt is 6% of US assets valued at $269 trillion. It would be easily financed by the wealthy and corporations. Though, liquidity being carefully controlled by the federal reserve, paying all that debt in a short time could be very problematic for the economy.

gon weed it but no gonna say notin

!planet earth sell a 1 rupee!
£sign here£
sinku

 

[Alnitak]

I mean if you have $100 in your bank account, the government can take $5 from it.
If the bank has $1 trillion in its bank account, the government can take 5% from it. Is that fair ?

No. For three reasons.

• About 44% of US households maintain less than three months worth of short term liabilities.
• It's too easy to move assets and the wealthy are expert tax dodgers.
• Bank accounts fluctuate wildly. You could take some kind of mean as how much they would take out, but even that is unpredictable.

 

[sixthson]

I mean if you have $100 in your bank account, the government can take $5 from it.
If the bank has $1 trillion in its bank account, the government can take 5% from it. Is that fair ?

Where did you ever get the idea a government could be trusted with money?

 

[Telstra]

Where did you ever get the idea a government could be trusted with money?

We have to assume a lot of things here such as no corruption and they spend wisely ... etc.
Also you let them spend on defense right ?

 

[Telstra]

No. For three reasons.

• About 44% of US households maintain less than three months worth of short term liabilities.
• It's too easy to move assets and the wealthy are expert tax dodgers.
• Bank accounts fluctuate wildly. You could take some kind of mean as how much they would take out, but even that is unpredictable.

No not easy.
Over here, every time you move assets (property) you have to pay quite high % of duty.

 

[sixthson]

We have to assume a lot of things here such as no corruption and they spend wisely ... etc.
Also you let them spend on defense right ?

There are two things at the very top of my list about politicians when it comes to assuming: one, they are likely corrupt or in danger of becoming corrupt and second, they will spend our money like drunken sailors.

 

[Telstra]

There are two things at the very top of my list about politicians when it comes to assuming: one, they are likely corrupt or in danger of becoming corrupt and second, they will spend our money like drunken sailors.

Like it or not, they have to get money from somewhere.
So is it fair for them to get money from ALL bank accounts?
If you have $1 they only take 5 cents ....

 

[Benvolio]

A tax on bank accounts or assets would be a direct tax which under the Constitution must be proprtional to the Census. The result would be that some states would pay a higher percentage than others. It has never been done and never will. A tax on church accounts would be a tax on the exercize of reigion, forbidden by the constitution.

 

[kallipolis]

Government and tax payers' money can sometimes be a recipe for abuse of that money.

Here's an example that illustrates the wilful stupidity of a politician:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36057226

I quote:

A police helicopter was used to retrieve the lost wallet of the Alabama governor, at a reported cost to taxpayers of $4,000 (£2,800).
In late 2014, Robert Bentley left Tuscaloosa for his beach home five hours' drive away, but left his wallet.
He then asked his security to deliver it, a trip completed via state police helicopter, according to flight logs.

 

[jbrown329]

A flat tax hits the poor the worst.

 

[star-warrior]

Until the recent new tax year, banks in the UK took off tax on interest earned and that went directly to the treasury, without anyone having to lift a finger. Now, if you don't have interest that nets you £1000 or more, you don't need to pay tax on the interest earned.

Japan has a negative interest rate. A positive rate would mean you're earning interest on your savings. A negative one, I assume, means they will take money from your savings in order for you to have the privilege of using their banking system...