I think that was exactly my point, rehctub.

>>a TT happens every single time money gets banked.<<

So it follows, that the less often you use the bank, the less often you are taxed on the transaction.

Let's say, just by way of example, that you choose to take all your "between $1300 and $1400" out of the bank in one hit. As you say, you will incur a tax of thirty bucks or so on the deal, which would leave you better off than if your money had been taxed at source.

But not only would you benefit from that, but you would be in a position to get "pay less for cash" on a range of transactions every week, that would benefit you even more. If you use cash instead of a credit card for instance, that's automatically saving you money, right there at the checkout.

More than anything else though, it is the signal that you are sending with a transaction tax that will inevitably change the behaviour of both buyers and sellers: if you are seen to transact, you pay. Most people will willingly look for alternatives, when faced with this option.

The only possible chance that a transaction tax will work, is if/when society relinquishes cash forever, i.e. there is no alternative to electronic (therefore visible) transactions.

When do you reckon that might happen?

"Some will say that is just good business, no its not, that is just criminal."

Paul, you've got it back the front. The only way your statement could make sense is if everything and everybody belong first and foremost to the government, and then your right to freedom and property is whatever is left over after the government has taken and done whatever it wants.

Needless to say, what you are advocating is criminal.

There is no moral obligation to pay tax. There is indeed a moral obligation to avoid it because:
a) it based on threatening to shoot, cage and rape people, which is what you are advocating without understanding what you're talking about
b) it makes society poorer
c) it promotes parasitic behaviour
d) it undermines the only moral basis of human society, which is private property
e) it is used to fund all the governmental activity that you disagree with.

You guys are mad, sad and bad trying to restrict the cash economy. Talk about Stockholm syndrome. We should be trying to restrict the tax vampire economy, and the violence-based greed and grasping of the political/parasite class.

Dear Jardine,

I agree with most you write, but I have a problem with the following:

<<There is no moral obligation to pay tax>>

As I see it, cash is printed by the government: nothing prevents government from attaching conditions to the cash it prints, including taxation. If you agree to take it and use it, then wouldn't it be a moral requirement to stick to this agreement? Besides, unless you are upfront about it, avoiding tax normally involves lying or cheating, which is immoral.

As for taxing foreign currency transactions/income, this could perhaps be justified on the basis of international taxation agreements between governments, but what is truly atrocious are the laws which restrict bartering and/or printing your own money - this is the real problem, rather than the taxing of government-issued money.

But how can one evil cancel another?

Pericles, with respect you are missing the poimt.

Whether you take your money in a lump sum, or in one dollar incumbents, you still pay the exact amount of tax, as unlike income tax, a flat TT is a set % of the transaction.

Now as for the cash society, yes, nothing short of a cashless society will prevent that, however, those trading in cash only, with no receipts are becoming scarce and, even your local chinnesse takeaway/bakery, the main culprits of cash only businesses have to bank all but the profits from their business just to pay the bills. Then, chances are once the spend their cash, the receiver will bank it anyway.

A transaction tax is the closest thing to being unavoidable. Besides, at just 2% I doubt many would bother trying.

Just a thought.

What if the framework for taxes was that they represent or are an access fee (or franchise fee) to be able to live, supply labour and services in a marketplace or society?

Those same taxes can be thought of as the investment vehicle to provide both physical and social infrastructure to a society.

Should one wish to access the infrastructure then a (franchise fee) ie taxes need to be paid.

No payment of franchise fee (taxes) seems to me to indicate a bludger, free loader or grafter.

Rehctub I have one problem with your system.

If government is to continue to pay for all it does now, public service, defense, education, health, welfare, & all the other things, so many of which we used to look after ourselves, they must still collect the same amount of money.

If this is the case, not one cent will be reduced in their take, no matter what the system used to collect it.

Yes the tax burden may be distributed somewhat differently, but without spending cuts, it must be the same gross take.

You may gain while I lose, but someone must pay. If that comes down to business paying more than now, as would appear likely, they will have to increase prices to cover this cost.

PAYE & small business people may gain in take home pay, but they will still have to fund the ever growing, & terribly inefficient government services they demand. This would have to be by an increase in prices that industry would have to charge to cover their new costs.

Swings & roundabout comes to mind with any change which is revenue neutral.