Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: 5% Tax on all Transactions over $100,000.00

Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 11:59 p.m. EST by lonespectator (106)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All business transactions or stock trades over $100,000.00 will be levied a Rebuild America tax. The funds will be managed by a non-governmental entity that will split the funds between all contractors who will agree to hire and train a national work force to rebuild infrastructure projects throughout the nation. Large organisations can also sponsor through grants funds to augment this programs funding. Those who agree to contract and work in this National project will pay no Federal Taxes for a period of 2 years.

56 Comments

56 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by jbd (1) 13 years ago

hello all, I am the founder and creator of 4TheCause, a new social network aimed at exposing all of the citizens of the world to all of the social movements, campaigns, protests of the world via one social network, one platform through you can follow any protest out there and receive live video and photo feed! Please accept my invitation to join while it is in beta! This will be the beginning of a new facebook with a real social value! forthecause.ning.com

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Interesting.. Thanks for the info..

[-] 1 points by me2 (534) 13 years ago

So now in addition to various governmental entities taxing us, some kind of "non-governmental entity" will also be given that power? Sounds like a tough sell.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Power to accomplish common goals doesn't necessarily have to lead to corruption. Power to improve and grow together for a common good is vital to any movement. Power to change for the better is the essence of the Occupy Movement. Think Positive...Peace...

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 13 years ago

have you heard of the robinhood tax? that was about the same idea but there are some good arguments against it. I think it needs some analysis.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

There may be some similarity's. I think analysis is truly what is required. Thank you for your input.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 13 years ago

How about 10 transactions of $10,000 each performed in a few milliseconds between computers ?

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

That is a good point. You might be onto something. An algorithm could be written into a program to easily recognize interlocked trades and apply the Tax if transactions are from A to B within a certain time-frame. Bravo, your onto something!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 13 years ago

Routed through a bank in Switzerland. Remember, we can move money as fast as the internet now.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

That's a good thing..The speed of transactions..I do think that eventually, American companies should not be able to use foreign banks to avoid the 5% transaction fee. That will take the courage to change that culture which has resulted from greed perpetuated through lobbyists. The courage of those we hire to be in the White House and Congress to legislate for the people, not a few.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 13 years ago

Wow, that's so stupid. A tax on jobs, investment, houses, hell everything that's worthwhile. And it's completely avoidable if the transaction can be split into parts, which big business will rapidly become expert in doing. Of course the money goes into a fund which is every bit as lootable by big business as every other government department. Hell it's more so since contracting is better for big businesses with more Federal taxes than small businesses.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Not so..You are using old rules that we now change. Think positive. Don't rely on assumptions that these things can't be worked out. Open Source oversight, and the good will of the people and the goals to rebuild America will overcome old habits of greed. We have the technology to begin the healing. Think Positive..Put forth your best ideas. Peace...

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 13 years ago

It's got nothing to do with oversight, it's got to do with good will. It's got to do with the tax being stupid and unenforcable. How do you distinguish between one transaction and several that are connected? Why do you want to tax transactions that are bigger than a certain amount and not others? There simply is no logic or thought behind this proposal. This is the sort of un-thought-through rubbish that is making OWS a joke.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 13 years ago

There should be a transaction tax on all financial transactions on wall st. period. And it should be higher than 5%.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 13 years ago

Ok, what would happen if there was a tax on share transactions of 5%? Well for a start nobody would put money in unless they knew they would make at least 10.526% profit* before he had to take the money out. That means no speculation. No speculation means no speculators, and speculators (not regulators) are the ones who find out about financial abuses.

The market would be paper-thin, meaning they'd be even easier to manipulate for what speculators still existed. Getting out of a stock would be a lottery depending on what other investors wanted to get in at the time. This is not a problem for the really rich, but middle class investors who say suddenly needed money for an operation or other emergency expense could lose massive amounts. All this scares away investors meaning the returns required to attract them would be higher. So the 1% do even better. Actual investment of course is less because IPOs and share issues would basically die which means less jobs, lower wages and generally a worse economy. Of course maybe the investment would be made up with corporate loans rather than share sales. Yeah more leverage, that's what corporate America needs.

Of course less IPOs means that new companies are harder to launch meaning the Apples, Googles, and Cochlear ltds don't tend to start. So not only is your proposal bad for the economy it's worst for the part that creates actual class mobility.

  • Trust me on the maths
[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

it's not just wall Street. It's all transactions over $100,000. and 5% is a start. Think Positive.. Continue to support open dialog. We all together can formulate our demands to Washington when we expand the Occupy the White House and bring our demands to the President and Congress. We start now to take back the Peoples House. OWh Now!!

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 13 years ago

Great.. My options go at 33.33333333 now. I'll take 5! Thank you.....I'd never figure that OWS would help me........thanks again.......

[-] 1 points by armchairecon1 (169) 13 years ago

non governmental entity = private corporation

im sure someone is drooling over the chance to run this 'fund'

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

That's good..With open source "Real Time" viewing of transactions, the transparency issue could be dealt with. What bothers me is the really dumb standard arguments like 'well, what if they just run a bunch of 99,000.00 transactions to avoid the tax. Again, transparency...Such patterns would show fraud and could be dealt with easily. Those companies would be shown for who they really are under the light of day. This can amount to a lot of money for "the peoples" projects...Peace..

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 13 years ago

You may be on the right track. The APT is a serious proposal http://www.stjohns.edu/media/3/f51703ed09734f75972b332daeeb2d01.pdf

Also it is similar to the Tobin Tax which has gotten some serious consideration in Europe, the UK specifically. It can be made as regressive as you want. Check it out.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

So if someone sells their house for $250K they will pay 5% tax? And what would keep big money from just doing several transactions for $99K to avoid the tax. Come on now. Things like these just serve as material for Beck and the like to use against OWS. A large chunk of the 99% OWS claims to represent would be against this.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

What bothers me is the really dumb standard arguments like 'well, what if they just run a bunch of 99,000.00 transactions to avoid the tax. Again, transparency...Such patterns would show fraud and could be dealt with easily. Those companies would be shown for who they really are under the light of day. This can amount to a lot of money for "the peoples" projects...Peace..

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

Is it really fraud though? Will making transactions in the amount of $99K be made illegal? Who is to say that isn't the amount of stock a trader wants to sell? I used to have to make cash deposits for my business and I would bring just shy of $10K to the bank each time so I would not have to fill out all the paperwork that goes with deposits over $10K.

Also, you never address the question of the middle class family selling their house. Will they automatically loose 5% of the value of their house to the IRS simply by selling it?

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Both good points..We need to eliminate a lot of paperwork everywhere. And if he wants to make $99K trade, thats OK...Once. maybe twice. Then red flag. And Yes, Home owner also...every transaction or trade ,or movement of funds..5%

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

I just think that is something very few people of this country would support. $100K is not really that much money. A grocery store probably buys at least $100K worth of merchandise from their suppliers in each order and their profit margins are already razor thin. That whole 5% will just get passed on to the customers.

And this would also amount to a national 5% sales tax on home sales, regardless of the profit/loss being taken on the sale. People simply would not stand for it.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 13 years ago

its funny how dumbfounded they get when you bring up the idea that the extra tax cost will get passed on to the consumer because the company would have to raise prices to pay for the tax. The only way you can implement this idea is to introduce price controls....and we all know that is not a very good idea. It will lead to even more chaos.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 13 years ago

I agree. In the grocery store example, their profits are probably already less than 5%. Increase supply costs by 5% and they go out of business if they can't raise their own prices.

[-] 0 points by steven2002 (363) 13 years ago

I think all transactions of $10,000.00 or more should have a tax of 50%.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

That would be a hard sell within the context of any reality.. However, you are thinking solution...That is good! Stay Positive. Peace...

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

As the funds are distributed to the selected contractors, They will hire tens of thousands of people and per agreement provide all fully paid training and mentoring for 2 years. That will create the jobs that build infrastructure. Those workers will then pay for the support services, and the communities will benefit from a fully employed workforce.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Why can it not happen? This is our Country. Think Positive...Now is the time to "Occupy the White House" and remind those elected what exactly is their primary purpose...OWH now!!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Well, I think it's time to remove the Red Tape. Cities do it all the time. Take a look at San Diego's Red Line..Goes all over the county and throughout the city. Led to jobs and revitalization of the downtown area etc.... Think positive. We are the people... We will demand projects and the elimination of red tape.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 13 years ago

Unfortunately you are right.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 13 years ago

Stick your tax up your you know what.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Thanks for sharing. Now what is your idea, other than an apparent pertinacity for inserting things in other peoples behinds.. Think Positive.. Demand better of yourself... Peace

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 13 years ago

For you assholes to stay in your little tent city, begging for donations so you can " survive the winter". I got an idea, hire some Inuits and have them teach you how to get along in a big city during the winter months. Or, better yet, go to Nunavut and live in their land for the winter.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 13 years ago

Sorry for the typo. That's a 50% tax, but it only applies to you.

[-] 0 points by l31sh0p (279) from Sand Fork, WV 13 years ago

So, instead of making a transaction of $100,000, the company would make two transactions of $50,000. Taxing is not the solution.

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Yes it is..Good dialog on this. Think positively. Develop ideas. Then we will take them to the Occupy the White House" movement.

[-] -1 points by Fedup10 (228) 13 years ago

Talk about a job killing tax! This is it!!

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

Same old line won't work here. Try to look at this as a positive contribution to the dialog. Stop the demagoguery. This is a job creator.

[-] 1 points by livemike (57) 13 years ago

No it's really not. It's an easily avoidable, unfocused, possibly regressive, unintelligent tax and the proposal is to spend more money despite the total failure of government spending to prevent disaster. Yeah that's great. Is there any reason to believe that taking money out of the economy and putting it back in is a good idea?

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 13 years ago

how is this a job creator when it takes wealth away from people and gives it to the govt?

[-] 1 points by lonespectator (106) 13 years ago

It doesn't give the government anything. All private contractors and private jobs, and private over-site via "open source" access for guaranteed transparency.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 13 years ago

so more private-public partnerships? isnt that what has gotten us in trouble?