• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A New TAX

woranch

Well-known member
The bill is HR-4646
introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US
Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. It is now in committee and will
probably not be brought out until after the Nov. elections.

US Congressman and Senators.One percent transaction tax is proposed
by President Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged. This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn. Some will say aw it's just 1%... remember once the tax is there they can raise it at will.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
wse > Home / Ask FactCheck / 1% Transaction Tax
1% Transaction Tax

September 8, 2010
Bookmark and Share

Q: Is "Obama’s finance team" recommending a 1 percent tax on all bank transactions, as a chain e-mail claims?

A: No. This idea was first floated in 2004 by one House member, who says it would replace the federal income tax and eliminate the national debt. So far it has gone nowhere. FULL QUESTION

Here is the latest email I have received that I figure is more bunk, but have yet to find facts about this. I am still looking! Thanks!

Subject: 1% tax on all bank transactions Wonder what the ones who voted for this idiot think now? One percent transaction tax is proposed President Obama’s finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. A ny deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn. Some will say aw it’s just 1%… remember once the tax is there they can raise it at will.

FULL ANSWER

This is an idea originally floated in 2004 by a single member of Congress, Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania. So far it has attracted little support and gone nowhere. The White House has not endorsed it.

Fattah has a web page devoted to explaining the original idea from 2004, which he called the "Transform America Transaction Fee." In its latest incarnation, he calls it the "Debt Free America Act." It would repeal the federal income tax (a feature not mentioned in the chain e-mail message) and supposedly still generate enough revenue to eliminate the national debt. It also contains a tax credit that would, at least in theory, offset the tax for families making less than $250,000 a year.

Fattah explained his proposal in a press release dated Feb. 23. His plan also has been summarized in a newspaper column by Democratic commentator Lanny Davis.

Fattah’s original bill from 2004 (H.R. 3759) would merely have required the U.S. Treasury to conduct a one-year feasibility study of a 1 percent transaction fee. Back then, he touted the possibility that such a system would bring in so much money it would allow for greatly increased federal spending, saying the "excess funds" would "provide universal health care, support an equitable public school finance system, and fund economic development in urban and rural areas," in addition to extinguishing the national debt and eliminating all other federal taxes. That bill died without becoming law, or even attracting a single co-sponsor.

Fattah tried again in 2005, with H.R. 1601, and again in 2007 with H.R. 2130 (which had a single cosponsor, Democratic Rep. Brian Baird of Washington). But both bills died without any action being taken. Last year he introduced a fourth bill to require a study, H.R. 1703, which attracted no cosponsors. That bill is still languishing in committee.

With no study in sight, Fattah this year introduced a bill that would establish the fee and repeal the federal income tax. The latest bill is H.R. 4646, introduced on Feb. 23, 2010. The congressman is now saying less about increased spending, and more about eliminating the debt: "If Congress fails to act, inflationary pressures triggered by staggering debt will create economic conditions unlike anything ever experienced in the history of this country, including the Great Depression."

Fattah has also added a tax credit designed to eliminate the impact of the measure on those making less than $250,000 a year. But it’s basically the same idea — replacing current federal taxes with a penny-on-the-dollar tax on transactions. The latest bill was referred routinely to the several committees that have jurisdiction over its various aspects. As of Sept. 5, 2010, none of the committees had scheduled any action on it.

We spoke to Rep. Fattah about it, and he said he’s hopeful the president’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will see merit in his proposal. But so far, he said, "No one at the White House has ever commented on this in any fashion."

As usual, we’re only describing the bill, not saying it’s a good idea or a bad idea. But it’s just not true that "Obama’s finance team" supports it.

– Brooks Jackson

Update, Sept. 29: Some versions of this message incorrectly identify Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa as sponsors of the legislation. Rep. DeFazio, whose office has received many inquiries about the message, told us through a spokesman that he not only isn’t co-sponsoring the bill, he doesn’t support it.

Rep. DeFazio, Sept. 29: I do not support Rep. Fattah’s H.R. 4646 because it wrongly targets all financial transactions, rather than just focusing on the Wall Street speculators that got us into this economic mess. An average American making normal day-to-day transfers of money should not be taxed on those transactions .

DeFazio sponsored a different and much narrower transaction tax proposal in 2009, which he called the ‘‘Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street’s Bailout Act of 2009’’ That was H.R. 1068. DeFazio’s tax would have been only 0.25 percent, would have applied only to securities and commodities transactions, and would have fallen to zero once it had recouped the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It had 13 co-sponsors, but the only similarities to Fattah’s proposal is that it involved a transaction tax, and also did not move out of committee.

Sen. Harkin’s version of the 0.25 percent transaction tax on securities and commodities was S. 2927, the "Wall Street Fair Share Act." It attracted three co-sponsors and also did not move out of committee.
Sources

Fattah, Rep. Chaka. "Transform America Transaction Fee" Undated Web page accessed 7 Sep 2010.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Rep. Chaka Fattah must be one of those "nutso right wing extremist teabaggers" trying to abolish the federal income tax.


Oh, he's a Dem.....nevermind. :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
2/23/2010--Introduced.
Debt Free America Act - States as purposes of this Act the raising of sufficient revenue from a fee on transactions to eliminate the national debt within seven years and the phasing out of the individual income tax. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 1% fee, offset by a corresponding nonrefundable income tax credit, on transactions that use a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. Defines "transaction" to include retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Establishes in the legislative branch the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action to review the fiscal imbalance of the federal government and make recommendations to improve such imbalance. Provides for expedited consideration by Congress of Task Force recommendations. Repeals after 2017 the individual income tax, refundable and nonrefundable personal tax credits, and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on individuals. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to: (1) prioritize the repayment of the national debt to protect the fiscal stability of the United States; and (2) study and report to Congress on the implementation of this Act.

Latest Major Action: 2/23/2010 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, Rules, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.4646:

it currently languishes in committee..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
woranch said:
The bill is HR-4646
introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US
Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. It is now in committee and will
probably not be brought out until after the Nov. elections.

US Congressman and Senators.One percent transaction tax is proposed
by President Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, etc.. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged. This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax. Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn. Some will say aw it's just 1%... remember once the tax is there they can raise it at will.

Sounds like another false fearmongering e-mail :roll:

Here is what Fact Check has to say:


1% Transaction Tax
September 8, 2010
Q: Is "Obama’s finance team" recommending a 1 percent tax on all bank transactions, as a chain e-mail claims?

A: No. This idea was first floated in 2004 by one House member, who says it would replace the federal income tax and eliminate the national debt. So far it has gone nowhere.




FULL ANSWER

This is an idea originally floated in 2004 by a single member of Congress, Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania. So far it has attracted little support and gone nowhere. The
White House has not endorsed it.


Fattah has a web page devoted to explaining the original idea from 2004, which he called the "Transform America Transaction Fee." In its latest incarnation, he calls it the "Debt Free America Act." It would repeal the federal income tax (a feature not mentioned in the chain e-mail message) and supposedly still generate enough revenue to eliminate the national debt. It also contains a tax credit that would, at least in theory, offset the tax for families making less than $250,000 a year.

Fattah explained his proposal in a press release dated Feb. 23. His plan also has been summarized in a newspaper column by Democratic commentator Lanny Davis.

Fattah’s original bill from 2004 (H.R. 3759) would merely have required the U.S. Treasury to conduct a one-year feasibility study of a 1 percent transaction fee. Back then, he touted the possibility that such a system would bring in so much money it would allow for greatly increased federal spending, saying the "excess funds" would "provide universal health care, support an equitable public school finance system, and fund economic development in urban and rural areas," in addition to extinguishing the national debt and eliminating all other federal taxes. That bill died without becoming law, or even attracting a single co-sponsor.

Fattah tried again in 2005, with H.R. 1601, and again in 2007 with H.R. 2130 (which had a single cosponsor, Democratic Rep. Brian Baird of Washington). But both bills died without any action being taken. Last year he introduced a fourth bill to require a study, H.R. 1703, which attracted no cosponsors. That bill is still languishing in committee.

With no study in sight, Fattah this year introduced a bill that would establish the fee and repeal the federal income tax. The latest bill is H.R. 4646, introduced on Feb. 23, 2010. The congressman is now saying less about increased spending, and more about eliminating the debt: "If Congress fails to act, inflationary pressures triggered by staggering debt will create economic conditions unlike anything ever experienced in the history of this country, including the Great Depression."

Fattah has also added a tax credit designed to eliminate the impact of the measure on those making less than $250,000 a year. But it’s basically the same idea — replacing current federal taxes with a penny-on-the-dollar tax on transactions. The latest bill was referred routinely to the several committees that have jurisdiction over its various aspects. As of Sept. 5, 2010, none of the committees had scheduled any action on it.

We spoke to Rep. Fattah about it, and he said he’s hopeful the president’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will see merit in his proposal. But so far, he said, "No one at the White House has ever commented on this in any fashion."

As usual, we’re only describing the bill, not saying it’s a good idea or a bad idea. But it’s just not true that "Obama’s finance team" supports it.

– Brooks Jackson

Update, Sept. 29: Some versions of this message incorrectly identify Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa as sponsors of the legislation. Rep. DeFazio, whose office has received many inquiries about the message, told us through a spokesman that he not only isn’t co-sponsoring the bill, he doesn’t support it.

Code:
Rep. DeFazio, Sept. 29: I do not support Rep. Fattah’s H.R. 4646 because it wrongly targets all financial transactions, rather than just focusing on the Wall Street speculators that got us into this economic mess. An average American making normal day-to-day transfers of money should not be taxed on those transactions .

DeFazio sponsored a different and much narrower transaction tax proposal in 2009, which he called the ‘‘Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street’s Bailout Act of 2009’’ That was H.R. 1068. DeFazio’s tax would have been only 0.25 percent, would have applied only to securities and commodities transactions, and would have fallen to zero once it had recouped the net cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. It had 13 co-sponsors, but the only similarities to Fattah’s proposal is that it involved a transaction tax, and also did not move out of committee.

Sen. Harkin’s version of the 0.25 percent transaction tax on securities and commodities was S. 2927, the "Wall Street Fair Share Act." It attracted three co-sponsors and also did not move out of committee.
 

Steve

Well-known member
fact check should check congressional records..... and look at facts..

not sure what part of introduced on 2/23/2010-- they misunderstood, or

2/23/2010 Referred to House committee,,

unless I am in some sort of distorted time line... Feb 23, 2010 is this year...

and the current status is.. Status: Referred to the Committee , for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

is the e-mail wrong.. in assuming facts not in congressional record
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
fact check should check congressional records..... and look at facts..

not sure what part of introduced on 2/23/2010-- they misunderstood, or

2/23/2010 Referred to House committee,,

unless I am in some sort of distorted time line... Feb 23, 2010 is this year...

and the current status is.. Status: Referred to the Committee , for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,

is the e-mail wrong.. in assuming facts not in congressional record

Apparently you didn't read Fact Checks answer in totallity:

With no study in sight, Fattah this year introduced a bill that would establish the fee and repeal the federal income tax. The latest bill is H.R. 4646, introduced on Feb. 23, 2010. The congressman is now saying less about increased spending, and more about eliminating the debt: "If Congress fails to act, inflationary pressures triggered by staggering debt will create economic conditions unlike anything ever experienced in the history of this country, including the Great Depression."

Fattah has also added a tax credit designed to eliminate the impact of the measure on those making less than $250,000 a year. But it’s basically the same idea — replacing current federal taxes with a penny-on-the-dollar tax on transactions. The latest bill was referred routinely to the several committees that have jurisdiction over its various aspects. As of Sept. 5, 2010, none of the committees had scheduled any action on it.

We spoke to Rep. Fattah about it, and he said he’s hopeful the president’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will see merit in his proposal. But so far, he said, "No one at the White House has ever commented on this in any fashion."
 

Steve

Well-known member
fact check all but proved the bill exists...

congressional record shows the bill exists...

can it be moved from committee and voted on in the lame duck session.. yes... it can..

as I said.. fact checks states an opinion on the e-mail,,

I looked at the congressional records and reported only the facts...

so is their opinion worth more then the facts to you??? ... ???
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
fact check all but proved the bill exists...

congressional record shows the bill exists...

can it be moved from committee and voted on in the lame duck session.. yes... it can..

as I said.. fact checks states an opinion on the e-mail,,

I looked at the congressional records and reported only the facts...

so is their opinion worth more then the facts to you??? ... ???

Last I knew- direct statements by identified persons packed more weight than a bunch of rumor e-mail innuendo....And it doesn't appear to me that any of Obamas folks or anyone else in Congress is climbing all over getting this out of committee- especially since versions of it have languored in there since 2004....

Sorry Steve and woranch if I don't lose lots of sleep or have to wear Depends over this one right now... :roll: :wink: :p :lol:

We spoke to Rep. Fattah about it, and he said he’s hopeful the president’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will see merit in his proposal. But so far, he said, "No one at the White House has ever commented on this in any fashion."

Rep. DeFazio, Sept. 29: I do not support Rep. Fattah’s H.R. 4646 because it wrongly targets all financial transactions, rather than just focusing on the Wall Street speculators that got us into this economic mess. An average American making normal day-to-day transfers of money should not be taxed on those transactions .

Steve-- does not this latest version you posted not resemble in many ways the FAIR Tax that many Republicans and Conservatives have proposed to pay off the debt- and to do away with the Income Tax and tax exemptions :???:


2/23/2010--Introduced.
Debt Free America Act - States as purposes of this Act the raising of sufficient revenue from a fee on transactions to eliminate the national debt within seven years and the phasing out of the individual income tax. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 1% fee, offset by a corresponding nonrefundable income tax credit, on transactions that use a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. Defines "transaction" to include retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Establishes in the legislative branch the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action to review the fiscal imbalance of the federal government and make recommendations to improve such imbalance. Provides for expedited consideration by Congress of Task Force recommendations. Repeals after 2017 the individual income tax, refundable and nonrefundable personal tax credits, and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on individuals. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to: (1) prioritize the repayment of the national debt to protect the fiscal stability of the United States; and (2) study and report to Congress on the implementation of this Act.

Latest Major Action: 2/23/2010 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on the Budget, Rules, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker,
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
actually it also resembles a UN proposal for a "transaction tax" of half a percent, which would go to the World Bank.

The tax, which was vehemently supported by President Obama in Copenhagen, will cost American families already laboring under the greatest financial collapse for generations at least $3,000 a year just for starters.

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/2874.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Here is the FairTax that was supported by some (R's) and conservatives last election....

What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer said:
Steve-- does not this latest version you posted not resemble in many ways the FAIR Tax that many Republicans and Conservatives have proposed to pay off the debt- and to do away with the Income Tax and tax exemptions Say what?

not sure.. I haven't looked at any of the proposals close enough to comment...

but I can say I have never seen a fair tax.. the poor get exemptions, and often pay little.. the rich take exemptions and often pay less... or pass them on to US,..

I just don't support raising any tax until the government can get spending under control..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
fact check all but proved the bill exists...

congressional record shows the bill exists...

can it be moved from committee and voted on in the lame duck session.. yes... it can..

as I said.. fact checks states an opinion on the e-mail,,

I looked at the congressional records and reported only the facts...

so is their opinion worth more then the facts to you??? ... ???

Last I knew- direct statements by identified persons packed more weight than a bunch of rumor e-mail innuendo....And it doesn't appear to me that any of Obamas folks or anyone else in Congress is climbing all over getting this out of committee- especially since versions of it have languored in there since 2004....

Sorry Steve and woranch if I don't lose lots of sleep or have to wear Depends over this one right now... :roll: :wink: :p :lol:

let see the bill exists.. and has a current status, that is the only fact presented..

fact check says the e-mail is untrue,... some of it may be,... but not the most important fact... and they can only assume the rest is wrong...
 
Top