[Glock Glockler]

I was just wondering what you thought of this: is he accurate, redundant, what would better points be, etc?

THE TEN STEPS TO "FIX" AMERICA. Popular Los Angeles talk show host, Larry Elder speaks out.
The 10-Point Elder Plan

1) Abolish the IRS
Pass a National Sales Tax--Also known as the "Let's Make Tax Lawyers and Lobbyists an Endangered Species Act." A simplified tax code gives lobbyists little to lobby about. A low tax rate spurs people to work harder without resorting to schemes to "shelter" income. At the turn of the century, government took 10 percent of the national income. Now it takes nearly 40 percent. Low taxes means higher productivity and greater job creation. Let's welcome any move to reduce our tax burden, whatever form it takes.

2) Reduce Government by 80 percent
Less than 2 percent of Americans are farmers, yet the Department of Agriculture adds still more bureaucrats. And what exactly does the Department of Commerce do? Do we need the Small Business Administration? Amtrak? The Tennessee Valley Authority? Department of Education? Before 1950, the government largely stayed out of the housing business. Now we have housing projects in all of our major cities. They have become sewers of crime and drugs. The government, an absentee landlord, couldn't care less. The private sector can build housing more cheaply, with an incentive to maintain the property and screen tenants.

3) End Welfare, Entitlements and Special Privileges
Welfare for the poor works out to a national average of $12,000 to $13,000 a year (cash and non-cash) per recipient. Why work at minimum wage? Why worry about impregnating someone when the government shields you from financial responsibility? But welfare for the non-poor, or entitlements, are five times as bad. This includes Social Security (the average recipient has put in fifteen cents for every dollar he or she takes out), Medicare, tuition tax credits, farm and dairy subsidies, tobacco subsidies, as well as government ownership or control of airports and utilities.

4) Abolish the Minimum Wage
A low-paying job remains the entry point for those with few marketable skills. The minimum wage hurts the so-called hard-core unemployable by forcing an employer to pay more than the fair value of labor. Every time the government raises the minimum wage, thousands of entry-level jobs get destroyed.

5) Legalize Drugs
Legalization does not mean approval. America spends at least $20 billion a year to fight a losing battle against drugs. (Research by William F. Buckley places America's direct and indirect costs of this "war" at more than $200 billion a year.) Experts say that worldwide, the annual drug trade may be as high as $500 billion! "Just say no" ain't gonna stop that. The drug trade provides an economic incentive for children and teens to drop out of school and earn fast money. It accounts for 50 percent of all street crimes and perhaps 30 percent of the prison population. Tax drugs, and use the money for drug treatment and additional police protection. Drug legalization would free up prison spaces, vacancies that could be used to lock up violent criminals. What about the harm to society? Drug abuse would have to increase well over fivefold to match the deaths caused by cigarette smoking (allegedly 400,000 a year).

6) Take Government Out of Education
Before the mid 1800s, elementary and secondary education (except for slaves) was largely parent financed. Today, taxpayers spend more than $6,000 a year per student, more than virtually any other country, including Japan. With what result? Poor test scores, high dropout rate, kids incapable of filling out employment applications. Why can't the private sector assume this responsibility? Let's cheer anything, including vouchers, that takes us in this direction

7) Drop the Davis-Bacon Act
This little-known act compels contractors bidding on government jobs to pay union wages. This cuts out competent, non-union workers willing to work for less. This hurts minorities, many of whom were for years discriminated against by unions.

8) Eliminate Corporate Taxes
The government taxes corporate profits and re-taxes the dividends, taking money otherwise used to reduce prices, pay higher dividends, pay higher salaries, or invest in research and development. More corporate investment means more jobs.

9) Charity from People Not Government
During the 1980s, the "decade of greed," charitable contributions by corporations and private citizens increased by at least 30 percent! Why? People had more disposable income, paid fewer taxes, and therefore gave more away. Americans are among the most generous people on Earth. But people want their money to go to people and organizations that they choose and trust.

10) End Protectionism
How many people know that Japanese trucks and minivans cost $2,000 more due to import tariffs? Government-mandated "price supports" force consumers to pay more for milk. Government goodies for the tobacco and sugar industries stiff consumers. Congress imposes a mind-boggling array of rules and regulations to protect declining, inefficient businesses, while taking money away from new ones.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[six 4 sure]

I would also vote to eliminate property tax. I don't understand why you have to pay taxes on land you or your family have owned for decades.

six

[Vladimir Berkov]

Don't forget gun laws.

[Chris Rhines]

There are a couple more things I'd do, but Larry Elder is on the right track.

- Chris

[SkunkApe]

I'd add a few more, too, but I can't disagree with anything thats there.

If I could only live to see the day we got one or two of these...

[Soap]

Great! How?

[Waitone]

There you go again with that practicality stuff.

Since we are flying the fancy, how 'bout keeping people who accept welfare from voting?

[4v50 Gary]

I'd restrict the months that Congress can meet.

[skyder]

I would suggest one more. It happens to be one of my biggest gripes about government.
There should be NO retirement program for any elected office. A citizen should run for and be elected to a public office, finish out his term and go gome. Those who can look ahead to a rich retirement spend too much of their efforts in office to stay in that office long enough to get the cushy retirement . It would be nice to see some statesmen in office instead of politicians.

[Moparmike]

I dont know if I would completely abolish social security, but I would sure as hell privatize it.

My take on property taxes is this (you may have read this in an article that I base my belief on): Property tax isnt really a tax. Its more like a life-time lease. If you dont pay your government-mandated lease, you get booted from your property. So, by this example, NONE OF YOUR PROPERTY IS YOURS. IT BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

This is completely opposite of what I believe the Founding Fathers wanted.

[MicroBalrog]

6) Take Government Out of Education
Before the mid 1800s, elementary and secondary education (except for slaves) was largely parent financed. Today, taxpayers spend more than $6,000 a year per student, more than virtually any other country, including Japan. With what result? Poor test scores, high dropout rate, kids incapable of filling out employment applications. Why can't the private sector assume this responsibility? Let's cheer anything, including vouchers, that takes us in this direction

Minor problem - how many people (as a percentage) could read and write then? How many can now?

[Glock Glockler]

Minor problem - how many people (as a percentage) could read and write then? How many can now?

I don't know, but was it because of or in spite of govt education? Medical care was rather primitave back then compared to what we have now, so would socialized medicine have been a good idea, even though we know that it's garbage?

[Jeeper]

I dont agree with about half of these.

1. As much as I hate the IRS I think a "sales tax only" scheme puts a tough burden on those that earn little. The percantage of income to necessities for poor people is very high as compared to those at higher levels. I like a flat tax idea that starts above a certain income.

2. Reduce guv'ment as much as possible.

3. Parts of social security should be kept. What do you do with disabled children who must become wards of the state for cost reasons? THere are a lot of TRULY disabled people who need this money to survive. I cant imagine that there would be enough private funding either

4. This one is a toss up. The reason cited is basically just not true in a good economy and in a bad economy it might make it worse. A high minimum wage is not good but a low one like now is very reasonable.

5. I favor legalizing drugs when there is an equivilant to a DUI test for them. I nkow you can blood test but that isnt very quick.

6. No. I favor privatizing it but it should still receive goverment money or the poor would continue to get stupider. IF they culdnt afford school then the education gap would ba even larger. Similar to what it was a century ago.

7. I am not really a union fan so this one is OK

8. Corporate taxes are worng. You shouldnt tax money three times

9. This one didnt say where the gov was giving money so I cant comment.

10. This is just wrong. I disagree completley. How can we ever compete with labot costs of 10 cents per hour from other countries. This would be a huge blow to our economy. IT is the same as the need for import taxes from countries where the goverment subsodizes the industry.

[Waitone]

10) End Protectionism
How many people know that Japanese trucks and minivans cost $2,000 more due to import tariffs? Government-mandated "price supports" force consumers to pay more for milk. Government goodies for the tobacco and sugar industries stiff consumers. Congress imposes a mind-boggling array of rules and regulations to protect declining, inefficient businesses, while taking money away from new ones. Noble sentiment in an ideal world. Like it or not we live in a world where labor is a global commodity. Because it is so easy to move production off shore we in the US are now faced with competing for jobs on a global scale. Problem is protectionism and minimum catches the attention. Protectionism raises to price to the consumer. Minimum wage raises the cost of production to the manufacturer.

Minimum wage is not the issue. What is the issue is the gaggle of government mandated "benefits" that lard up the cost of employing Americans in America. What benefits? Social benefits such as minimum wage, social security costs, medicate taxes, workman comp, etc. Health benefits such as health ins, dental insurance, health standards in places of production. Environmental benefits such as land use planning, clear work places regulations, EPA bureaucracy. Safety benefits such as OSHA goons, waste disposal. And finally the ringer in the list is litigation premium whereby indirect costs are increased simply to cover the chance of some predatory, unelected, unaccountable lawyers attacking you. It is no wonder manufacturing jobs are flushing out of the US.

In the last 3 years the US has lost 3.3 million jobs. 2.0 million of those jobs came out of the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector accounts for 17% of the US economy. What does it say? It says 65% of all job losses came out of 17% of the economy. While the unemployment rate across the economy is supposidly 6.1% I am willing to bet the unemployment rate in the manufactuing sector to be a high as 20%. . . . . which puts it clearly in the same category as the Great depression.

Protectionism is not the issue. Its government interference in the economy.

[Skunkabilly]

Larry Elder wrote that at least a year (or more) ago, and while largely adheres to his libertarian beliefs, has recently registered Republican and is a 'Republican with libertarian leanings'.

He has in the past, dissed the Republicans for having a soft stance on the 2nd Amendment and criticized G.H.W. Bush for signing the 1989 ban, etc.

VERY pro-gun.

[Ian]

If one reduces the Federal government by 80% or more, there's no need for a national sales tax to fund it. Drop the income tax, and don't replace it with anything.

[Moparmike]

Well, dont get rid of tax completely. Make tarriffs instead. the Gov lived on it before, it can again. (not only tarriffs, but it should be a majority of income)

[HankB]

Minor problem - how many people (as a percentage) could read and write then? How many can now? If you're talking about recent graduates of government schools, the percentage may be lower than you think.

And as far as personal income tax . . . if we just rolled government spending back to 1990 or so levels, we could abolish personal income tax entirely, and have a balanced budget to boot. The problem is, spending is growing faster than population, faster than inflation, and faster than the product of the two.

And most of the increase has nothing whatsoever to do with homeland security or the war on terror. :cuss: :( :mad:

[Soap]

Sales tax punishes the financially successful anyway. More higher priced stuff=more taxes paid.

[TEX]

Some of these seem like good ideas, but....

As far as tarrifs are concerned, I think would adopt a policy of not accepting imports from companies that don't meet certain standards such as a reasonable minimum wage, certain pollution and worker safety standards, etc. The reason so many companies tak production overseas is not just wages, but also because they can skirt US eviromental laws, worker safety laws, protection from being sued, etc. If they don't have a BIG incetive to be overseas, then I think a portion of these jobs would come back home.

The IRS does need to be abolished and a sales type tax instituted for two reasons; one so that you can control the amount of tax you pay. If you want to buy that $13K car instaed of the $25K car you are free to place the other UNTAXED $12K in your kid's education fund, etc. There should be no sales tax on basic foods, mediacal services or supplies, scholl tution, or purchase of primary home. This would keep low income folks from being hammered. A sales tax would also mean the IRS has no (&^(*&%(&(*&^(&^*&(()*&%^#$% business scoping out your private financial affairs.

Legalize some drugs and tax them with all money to go to treatment and education, while rasing the penalty for other truely dangeruos drugs. Conduct military strikes on overseas suppliers without ANY DAMN EXCUSES!

I do believe that anyone on goverment assistance, except for non-self inflicted disabilites, should not be able to vote.

One thing I would add however is that I would like to see military similar to what they have in Switzerland. Maybe 2 years basic skills training and in return free college or trade scholl if you make th grades. In the reserves until you are 40 minimum. This would give us a large number of people that could be brought up to speed quickly and would give us a chance to discover most of the nutt cases in the process. There should also be some alternative type service if you just can't bring yourself to be part of the military.

Oh well, my 2 cents anyway


Stay Safe

TEX

[Ian]

The IRS does need to be abolished and a sales type tax instituted for two reasons; one so that you can control the amount of tax you pay. Y'know you can pretty well control how much income tax you pay right now. Take your 1040, and instead of filling it out and mailing it the IRS goons, just throw it out. :) Sure, it's risky - but if you don't want to pay the tax, just don't.

If the Feds have to levy taxes on individuals (as opposed to small tariffs or requesting money from the states) the they are too large. Rather than give them more taxing power, we should hack them down to a more proper size. Frankly, if they collect any money by force they're too big, IMO.

Also, I detest the idea of mandatory militry service. I have absolutely zero interest in fighting overseas; and I am perfectly capable of militia-style national defense training myself. No way the Feds can come in and claim two or more years of my life for their own.

I do like the idea of limiting the vote to those who don't receive direct government payoffs.

[Glock Glockler]

As for funding the Federal govt, I think the Feds could bill the various state govts based upon their population. If State X has 5% of the population, they pay 5% of the buget. Whew, that seems really complicated and cumbersome compared to the current tax structure.

If they don't have a BIG incetive to be overseas, then I think a portion of these jobs would come back home.

Do you really want these jobs? Do you want to work in a factory making toasters? I don't, and it's also not good for the country to do so when it can be done at less cost overseas. It costs us because 1) we'd have to have domestic resources producing those goods, which could be applied to making other, more profitable goods. I'll not try to explain it, but I will direct you to someone better than I to do so. Tex, meet Walter Williams

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32568

The other problem with erecting those trade barriers with said countries is the cost of other countries trading with them. If we cut ourselves off from those inexpensive goods, and the economic opportunity that goes with them, do you think that the Chinese, Japanese, and Europeans will do likewise, or will they jump at the chance to economically suirpassing us? They'll go for it in a heartbeat.

How will that affect us in the future, when they have a far stronger economy that can fund their war machine and we've fallen behind?

Conduct military strikes on overseas suppliers without ANY DAMN EXCUSES

What would you think if Iran bombed breweries and distilleries here? I'm sure some boioze made here makes its way there, and it is against their Islamic law, so should they be allowed to bomb us?

If a drug really is dangerous, the user will soon find out, and we'll have one less drug user to worry about, or do you want to experiment with drinking gasoline to see if you get a weird buzz off it? Also, why should the govt provide funding for dependancy treatment? What happened to personal responsibility, that you are responsible for your actions and for cleaning up your own life. The America of Big Daddy govt wiping the collective butts of the population is not one of limited govt and rugged individualism, and it's not the one I want to raise my kids in.

Sales tax punishes the financially successful anyway. More higher priced stuff=more taxes paid.

Not quite correct. A sales tax punishes those that consume more, not necessarily those that make more. I know plenty of muppets that spend everything they make and more, going into debt, while others spend only a fraction of what they make. The really savy individuals invest their disposable income, which then produces more income for them. See "Cashflow Quadrant" by Robert Kiyosaki for more details.

Also, I am also completely opposed to compulsory Military service. For a number of reasons, it's a bad idea, the biggest being that you are essentially a slave if you can be forced to perform a service against your will. Is that a precedent that you want formed?

I think if you 1) stopped all the nonsense interventionalism arount the world, and 2) changed the military from the current PC touchy cuddely overweight don't hurt my feelings "fighting force", you'd have more people wanting to join than the Military can handle. I certainly don't want to get my behind shot off to stop the Croats and Serbs from killing each other, and I don't feel like going somewhere to take the spotlight off Clinton's sexual exploits.

Give me a military that is 1) allowed to be a military rather than a police force, and 2) run with the purpose of defending America's vital interests and not politician's, and I'll join today. I also know that I'm not alone in that. I came close to joining the Marines and the Army, but couldn't do so out of principles, as I don't believe in all the nonsense that the Military is involved in. If I don't believe that invading Haiti is a good thing to do, what business do I have there.

I also don't like the idea of some college twit who's never seen any real military service commanding those that have. We should be running our officer system like the Israelis, where you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. Maybe we should have a thread on how we should reform the military?

[Glock Glockler]

Jeeper,

If we reduced govt to it's Constitutional limitations, that tax burden would be minimal, especially considering the economic growth that would happen as a result of the increased capital in the hands of citizens as opposed to politicians. If we needed a sales tax, it would be extremely low.

I cant imagine that there would be enough private funding either (for the disabled)

Here's an idea: maybe if the Feds weren't consuming 40% of the GDP, we'd have more money so that folks like you and I could donate more to charity. Let's try it and see where we get.

A high minimum wage is not good but a low one like now is very reasonable

I don't get this: if a $7/hr minimum wage is good, why is a $70/hr wage bad?

At worst, a minimum wage creates employment barriers for those with no experience, violates people's right to contract, increases unemployment. At best, it's an inflationary tool that robs people of their purchasing power.

I favor legalizing drugs when there is an equivilant to a DUI test for them.

Shouldn't we work towards that regardless, or are people not driving while drugged up, cause it'd be illegal for them to do so?

No. I favor privatizing it but it should still receive goverment money or the poor would continue to get stupider. IF they culdnt afford school then the education gap would ba even larger.

Is there a Chinese buffet in your town? There is in mine, and I can get an all-you-can-eat lunch for under $7. One could live off of that and nothing else if you had to. Who would argue that food isn't more necessary to live than education, not me? Yet in food production there is a relatively free market that will satisfy demand, yet there is not a free market in education.

Even in the skewed market that exists, private education is far more cost-effective than govt education. To get the govt out of education at all govt levels, or at least get the Federal govt out of it, would mean tremendous savings to the consumer, so it would be even more affordable than you think. There would also be reciprocal economic benefits, as people have more disposable income, so the economy would improve as well, thus making it yet more affordable. In such an environment, would private charities not be able to pick up the slack?

How can we ever compete with labot costs of 10 cents per hour from other countries. This would be a huge blow to our economy.

How do Northern businesses compete with Southern business, cause we all know that the cost of labor is less in the South? How do we compete? In some instances, we don't. Florida will never be able to compete with Maine when it comes to lobsters, and Maine will never be able to compete with Florida when it comes to Citrus, so they don't try and they specialize in what they're good at.

[tyme]

Stop SS payouts. Use lockbox SS dollars to pay off national debt over next 1-2 decades
Fund real presidential and congressional/senate candidate debates (LD or similar). I'm sick to death of "debates" such as the recent Democratic '04 Prez. candidates debates, where the moderator asks each candidate a different question, allowing only a minute or two per answer, and in general fostering zero intelligent discussion.
Stop the WoD. This frees up still more money. Gut the relevant federal law and replace it with an across-the-board 20% import tax to stop drug money from funding destabilizing guerrila factions in Central and South America, and to pay for useful government programs. Street price will still drop, and risk will drop to zero, eliminating most drug-related violence, which reduces healthcare costs, which further reduces government spending. Import duties are Constitutional, though perhaps not wise.
People on wellfare for over a year don't get to vote. Parents on welfare at conception may not have/keep the child This is implemented irrespective of gender -- if only the father is on wellfare, this still applies. The child must be aborted No later than at 3mo or within 2 weeks of discovery, whichever is later. A binding adoption agreement may be signed in place of abortion, with a clause providing that the agreement can be voided by the biological parents if they are not on welfare when the child is born. All 3rd-term "discoveries" must be similarly aborted or adoption arranged, but the parents do not get to choose -- they must explore adoption first. Both mother and father will have their own welfare checks docked 10% retroactive to conception and extending to a year after birth or abortion. A single non-welfare parent must either obtain legal sole custody or get the other parent to go off of welfare if he or she wishes to have the child. Abortion costs will be deducted from the parents' welfare checks to avoid abuse. The alternative to this proposal is to eliminate welfare.
Online voting using certificates (via smartcard) with passphrase and biometrics for authentication. Not everyone has or wants a computer with a fingerprint scanner, so this would be implemented at voting centers, simultaneously avoiding most security problems with the online, at-home implementation. As an added benefit, many more people will become familiar with crypto, and such contracts and required FIPS 140-2 L3 and above hardware will drive crypto research.
Online voting ballots will not list party affiliation. There will be no option for "party vote" that autoselects all candidates from a particular party. Any candidates, qualifying by signatures from x% of the vote or selection by primary vote by a party with over x members, will be placed on the ballot in alphabetical order.
Disband the Department of Education, and any State equivalents. Require that all schools teach A View of the Constitution (http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm) (Harvard Law's Conlaw text for the early 19th century) and various other texts like Mill's On Liberty, and probably some Plato, Hobbes, and Locke for good measure. Constitutional justification? Such teaching is vital to the political health of the state. The writings used may be changed, but the majority of the several required texts must be over 100 years old to prevent historical or philosophical revisionism by any single generation/regime.
Government funding for non-economicially-viable programs. R&D for tasks such as space exploration and fusion power is not being explored enough by corporations because the cost barrier of such research is extremely high and there is no guarantee of success. The private sector can only be counted on to pursue research when the costs are relatively low or when success is reasonably certain. As a result, the Federal Government should fund at reasonable levels such programs which may solve serious future resource problems or that may have other significant benefits for mankind. Privatization of the programs is an option, subject to the next point...
All contracted government work must be transparent. All non-classified project details, budgetary divisions, balance sheets, etc., must be publicly displayed on the internet. The goal is not to discourage privatization of specific tasks, but to ensure that citizens know, to the extent the activities are unclassified, what their government is doing and how companies are spending their government's money.
Required publishing of FOIA-accessible (Federal and State) documents online. This includes court decisions. Documents must be stored in open format so that expensive software is not required to read them. Government must also phase out all non-open-source software. This does not mean all software used by government must be free, but that would probably be the result. Because the government is accountable to the people, the people must be able to see the processes and software by which the government is run. This includes classified algorithms like Skipjack. Except, as mentioned above, classified data is of course not to be made public.


Healthcare, and whether to nationalize it, is a serious issue, but has been omitted to avoid excessive conflict. :p

[Glock Glockler]

The child must be aborted

This is sick, both in it's effect (govt mandated abortion) and in it's cause (sustaining a forced welfare system). Why don't we just ditch govt welfare all together and let the chips fall where they may? If someone is not one their feet and they go to a another party for assistance, they can figure out their own terms. Why have the state dabble in welfare, is it because of the stellar job they do paving roads? Your alternative proposal is the only viable one.

"R&D for tasks such as space exploration and fusion power is not being explored enough by corporations because the cost barrier of such research is extremely high and there is no guarantee of success"

Sounds like most business ventures out there, it's a wonder how anything was ever invented or brought to market.

"Healthcare, and whether to nationalize it, is a serious issue, but has been omitted to avoid excessive conflict"

This is THR, not DU.com where they shut you down if you punch holes in their socialist arguements. So please, do tell, should we nationalize healthcare?

[Kinsman]

Income tax vs. Sales tax

One benefit of taxing people on what they buy vs. what they earn is that all the money currently "hidden" by drug dealers, prostitutes, etc. can now be included in the tax base.

You don't pay tax on food, medicine, primary homes.....but if you buy a boat or a TV or a MD-80 for your own private use, then you pay your fair share.

Main problem though is the huge appetite for money and power by that huge machine we call Gummint. Unbelieveably wasteful.

[Ian]

Parents on welfare at conception may not have/keep the child Frankly, any agency with the authority to enforce this would scare the blankety-blank out of me.

. R&D for tasks such as space exploration and fusion power is not being explored enough by corporations because the cost barrier of such research is extremely high and there is no guarantee of success. No, those things are being inadequately explored privately because government regulation of them is enormous. Anyone trying to design a fusion reactor has to go through a swampy mess of permits, regulation, and ignorant bureaucratic crap or else become a terrorist with a Weapon of Mass Destruction. In the Aerospace example, the same is true (I'm in the Aeronautical Engineering school of a highly-respected university; I know this example pretty well). In order to get the numerous permits and approvals for a private spacecraft, you have to basically become a subsidiary of NASA, which means going along with all their inane and wasteful crap, and ultimately have your design shelved and not even looked at for years. Get the Feds out of these areas and you'll see development jump forward. Take, for example, the initial development of powered flight. That was pretty pretty costly and looked impossible at the time. And it was achieved by a pair of bicycle repairmen, for goodness sake.

[JPM70535]

I have read a lot of good ideas in these replies as to how to fix the system here in the US. Most of them I would agree with if this were a perfect world, However.

While a National sales tax would at first glance seem to be the ideal revenue source, ( The more you use, the more you pay ) Problem with this is that paying lets say, a 15% sales tax on everything excepting food and medicine, paying 15% on the purchase of a $50000 automobile ($7500) would be a real hardship on John Q Public making minimum wage $25000 per year. On the other hand J D Rockerfeller Public wouldn't link at such a paltry fee. Sales taxes hit those hardest who are least able to pay them.

A far better tax system would be based on the flat tax idea where there isd assessed a flat rate tax on all money earned above a specified minimum, $50000 sounds fair to me., with a 25% tax rate above this amount. This would allow all of us to earn enough for basic necessities without Government pickpockets taking their cut, but assuring that those best able to pay taxes do so and have no loopholes available to avoid paying.
With this system in force, we could abolish the IRS and eliminate the need for about 90% of the Lawyers sucking off the present system.

The rebuttal to this idea is that there are not enough citizens making more than $50000 to foot the bill for the multitudes who make less than $50000. I DON"T KNOW.

Mandatory Military service is an idea who's time has passed. With all the exemptions to the standard obligation, our Drafted Army became an army of the poor, the minorities, the socially downtrodden, led by the elite college bred gentry. What followed the repeal of the draft really changed nothing. Todays voluntary army is still one of lower socioeconomic types, led by the elite (wealthy),

A really attractive alternative would be a scenario put forth by Robert Heinlein in his book "Starship Troopers" No one was forced to perform military service but if they wanted the priviledge of participating in Govt., then one had to perform service that carried with it personal risk. If one survived the service then full citizenship was attained.

SOUNDS REAL GOOD TO ME

Making drugs legal is an idea that comes up time and time again as a solution to the drug related crimes caused by the Addicts inability to obtain his fix cheaply. the recreational use of drugs such as Grass, and Coke supposedly does not lead to addiction and is no more harmful than moderate use of alcohol in its various forms.
All that is required to counter this tired argument is to simply point out that every Herion addict or Crack addict or(pick your drug of choice) will say he started his drug use with harmless Marijuana.

IIRC, the Netherlands has a drug permissive society. Their chief claim to fame seems to be that the addicts are so stoned that all they do is lay around and do more drugs, creating a whole class of people who live on the dole and produce nothing. Do we really want to go down that road?

The best idea as I see it would be to do away with the pension system for politicians that allows them to become wealthy by doing absolutely nothing that benefits the people they serve. The idea that a professional leech like Hillary Klintoon can serve out her term as Senator from NY ( where she never lived prior to her run) and even if she never serves again, will still collect her full pension at taxpayer expense. I view this as legalized robbery.

Politics should be an appointed position to which a candidate has to be dragged kicking and screaming, and after which the appointee returns to productive society, never to return to politics.

At least forums like this allow for the free exchange of ideas and pholosophys.

[mattd]

Sales tax drugs the same as any other product, or states will tax it so high that it would be cheaper to buy it from a gang and sloves one less problem.

[Glock Glockler]

or states will tax it so high that it would be cheaper to buy it from a gang and sloves one less problem.

If drugs were taxed so high that a black market still existed, there would be no point in legalizing them. The entire point of legalization is to eliminate the black market.

a 15% sales tax on everything excepting food and medicine

I doubt a Constitutionally Limited govt would require a tax that high, and even if it did, so what? Should the poor not have to pay their share of the tax burden? Are they not enjoying the benefits of national defense and a Federal court system?

If the situation is not agreeable to them, they can 1) spend less, 2) earn more, and 3) learn in invest in appreciating assets.

Also keep in mind that the cost of goods and services would drop due to higher production of those who currently scale back their work because of diminishing returns. The other problem I have wih a flat tax is that it's still an income tax! The IRS will still be with us, doing everything they can to snoop into our lives and destroy them when convenient.

An income tax means that youn don't truely have a right to your property if the govt has a claim on it before you do. What's to stop them from raising the percentage they take from X% to X+Y%? Nothing! It's an arbitrary number that they set, and can increase at will, so why can't they take 100%? If it's theirs, guess they can.

Although a head tax is far better than a sales tax, with a sales tax your provacy is still intact nd you an still choose how much tax you want to pay by how much you choose to spend.

[HankB]

paying 15% on the purchase of a $50000 automobile ($7500) would be a real hardship on John Q Public making minimum wage $25000 per year. Who in his right mind will spend TWO YEAR'S PAY on a car? I mean, I make a lot more than this hypothetical John Q. Public, and I won't spend fifty grand on a car! Let alone two year's pay!

I see one real danger with a national sales tax - we won't get a national sales tax in place of an income tax, we'll get it in addition to our income tax.

Hmmm . . . if we're serious about solving problems, (stand by while I put on my asbestos coat) maybe a person's vote should be weighted by the tax he actually pays. So billionaire tax dodgers would reduce the value of their vote by dodging taxes, and welfare parasites - who contribute NOTHING to society - would have no vote at all. (Why should they have a say in spending other people's money?)

[Ol' Badger]

Another Rule: Nicole Kidman has to appear nude in ever film she does!

[Moparmike]

I have one problem with abolishing the minimum wage, and it is due to ignorance of the subject.

My opinion and question: If we eliminate MW, how do we know that the average MW will plummet to early 20th century standards for physical labor? My dad does physical labor, and while he may work at Tyson and make a good wage for what he does, what is to say that once Tyson (or any other company, for that matter) no longer has that regulation to follow (along with all of OSHA, which is also in the Libertarian sight recticle) that they wont start taking advantage of their employees and give dirt cheap rates?

Someone please educate me as to why this opinion and question is groundless.

[hvengel]

I am suprised that no one has brought up the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/) which is basicly a sales tax proposal. This would be a 20% tax on all new goods sold. To deal with the regressive nature of a sales tax everyone would get a refund that would offset the tax on basic living expenses. Therefore those with a low income would pay little or no tax under this system. This proposal would eliminate the IRS, the income tax and all SS taxes. The orginization has estimated that the 20% tax rate would cover all current government programs and is therefore revenue-neutral. In addition since all goods and services being sold under the current tax system have a considerable tax burden included in the retail price the retail prices of these same goods and services will decline under the proposed system offsetting much of the new sales tax.

[Strings]

> All that is required to counter this tired argument is to simply point out that every Herion addict or Crack addict or(pick your drug of choice) will say he started his drug use with harmless Marijuana.<

And, if you asked people who were injured in an accidental shooting, most would say they had a gun in their home. Therefore, having a gun in your hme leads to accidental shootings...:rolleyes:

Now, do another survey: find out how many pot smokers "advance" to harder drugs. You'll probably find that pot isn't the "gateway drug" that's it's claimed to be...

[twoblink]

The solution is simple people;

Congress should be in session only 1 day out of the year, Labor day.

If that was the case, we'd all live much better lives..

That said..

Larry has always been on the right track.

As far as funding for disabled etc..

I would LOVE to donate all my tax dollars to the disabled. ... and I donate quite a bit of it; whenever I have money.

The fact that only about 5-6 cents on the dollar is overhead in organizations like the local red cross; compared to the federal government where 95 cents on the dollar is waste... It means I can magnify my money 15x as far as reaching the right people simply by giving to organizations and not the government. That means, I can donate 1/10th my taxes to the poor and needy and get more benefit than if the government did it.

[Glock Glockler]

"Someone please educate me as to why this opinion (minimum wage) and question is groundless."

:)Oh, Blessed art thou. How I do wish more people would ask that of me. Here goes:

The reason why the company will not drop the wages through the floor is simply market forces at work. If they decide that X activity is only going to be compensated with Y dollars, the laborer is either going to accept that or not. If your dad can go elsewhere and make better money, he will, and the company will be out a producing asset. If the company doesnt have any quality people, soon there will be no company.

The company is also not going to survive if it pays everyone an exorbitant salary, as the costs of production and distribution are all borne by the consumer. I can by a car from XZY company, that is lavish with their money, for $40,000 or I can buy an equivilant car from ABC company, that is cost-conscious, for $27,000, so which one am I going to choose?

The simple question that the consumer, the company, and you dad have to ask is "Are my time and efforts worth this much"? If any of those parties doesn't think so, they will move their business to a party where the arrangement is satisfactory.

All this is decided by supply and demand. How much demand is there for your dad's position and how much supply is willing and capable to meet it?

[Ian]

How can anyone seriously argue that a 20% tax (combining state/local and proposed Federal) on everything bought is a justifiable idea? Whatever happened to the idea of free trade? :scrutiny:

[Glock Glockler]

Ian,

Forgive me here, but doesn't "Free Trade" simply mean that there would be no geographical barries on the transfer of goods (i.e. Tarrifs, protectionism)?

[bjengs]

That's what it means to Republicans, but to a morally upright person, "free" means "uninhibited."

Or perhaps means "shall not be infringed," in more familiar language to all here. ;)

[Glock Glockler]

Just to play devil's advocate:

1 - "Free trade" is not garenteed in the Constitution, and even if it were, most would not want it. The closest thing we have is the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the intent of which was to create a free trade zone in the US, but was taken by FDR to give the Feds virtually unlimited power to everything that could remotely be connected with interstate commerce.

Even members of my own family, who are regularly subjected to my fanatical ravings, advocate various forms of protectionism. My brother, who just graduated dental school, believes in govt licensing as a means to reduce competition, and govt licensing to keep out of state dentists from attaining the ability to practice in state.

Free trade does not just apply to goods, but services as well. How many people out there do you think would really be willing to shed the protective coat of govt in exchange for freedom?

2 - A tax on a good or service is not placed upon it, at least as far as our discussion goes, for the purposes of stifiling that activity, but for the purposes of raising revenue for the govt. As commerce cannot meaningfully ensue without govt protection of property rights, a user fee on that activity is the cost of doing business in exchange for said protection.

How does that do?

Personally, I much prefer a head tax to any type of sales tax, though a sales tax seems like a massage by a Norweigan lesbian compared to the current income tax.

[bad_dad_brad]

Ah - just dreamin but - dreamin is free.

None of this will ever happen folks.

Be content with your cheap gas, fat arse in an easy chair, TV's placation of the mind, and the illusion of freedom.

Regardless, America is the best place on earth not to be free. Ain't it great to be middle class?

Sorry to be a cynic.

[Ian]

Glockler - Yeah, I'm using the term free trade the way bjengs described it; uninhibited. I wasn't thinking in economics terms when I made that comment.

Certainly, free trade isn't an element of the Constitution, and I too doubt most people desire it. It is still the only morally justifiable course of action, though. It doesn't matter what the goal of a tax is; a tax is a tax. It is theft at gunpoint.

Commerce doesn't require government intervention; rather commerce thrives in areas where government is nonexistant and/or impotent - the examples I've read up on most recently being revolutionary America and 1980s Afghanistan. And if commerce was only possible under the heel of government, then you'd think businessmen would welcome government and voluntarily pay for it (certainly not all of them, but clearly some, and at least a few).

Bad_dad_brad - America was also arguably one of the freest places to live in 1765. That doesn't mean that when the colonists wanted more freedom they were in the wrong, though.

[mattd]

If drugs were taxed so high that a black market still existed, there would be no point in legalizing them. The entire point of legalization is to eliminate the black market.

Wrong, there is one more, we won't need so many prisons.

[answerguy]

Why deny people on welfare the right to vote?

[Felonious Monk]

bjengs--That's what it means to Republicans, but to a morally upright person, "free" means "uninhibited."Don't even BEGIN to get me started on you MORALLY UPRIGHT Demonrats. :rolleyes: :banghead: :barf:

[Glock Glockler]

None of this will ever happen folks.

Be content with your cheap gas, fat arse in an easy chair, TV's placation of the mind, and the illusion of freedom.

It won't happen, even with millions of tireless freedom advocates like yourself on our side?

Maybe if the masses of people like yourself actually gave a damn and started to take action we would achieve something, or are you just trying to find a way to justify your laziness and complacency? It's lovely that you're wlling to work so hard to pass on a decent country for your children to grow up in, hopefully they won't have to be refugees in their lifetime.

No thank you. I will not accept this and will work to change it. I guess the founding fathers and every other person that changed world history should have just stayed on the lazy boy and cracked a beer.

[Glock Glockler]

Why deny people on welfare the right to vote?

Do they have the right to vote?

Who votes is decided upon standards set by the people through the legislature. Children cannot vote, and neither can non-citizens (legally, anyway, despite the efforts of the DNC).

I see no reason why someone, whoi isessentially existing as a prasite off of society, should have a say in how that society is run, much less vote themselves a bigger welfare check.

Should I have the right to vote on how Johnson & Johnson is run, even though I'm not a shareholder?

[HankB]

Why deny people on welfare the right to vote? What do they contribute to society? Not labor, since they don't work. Not money, since they live off the fruits of other people's labor.

When they vote, they're exercising control over what they don't earn or pay for, namely, my tax dollars. (And your tax dollars, and that other guy's tax dollars, etc.)

Better to ask, "Why allow people on welfare the right to vote?"

[answerguy]

Since many here like to use the constitution and bill of rights to support their arguments I wonder what in the original documents supports not allowing welfare recipients from voting.

[Moparmike]

Like answerguy said, the only thing standing in the way of denying welfare recipients (I dont count SS and Disability as welfare) is the Constitution. However, taking away welfare from the slackers or the welfare mothers who continually have children (dont get me started as to why they are unfit to do so) IS NOT against said Constitution.

I personally like the libertarian idea of demolishing welfare. But, I am also a savvy enough individual to know that our society will have to be much more Utopian for that to happen. (start the counter-arguments...:rolleyes: )