10 point plan for fixing America

[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]

sales tax

I am suprised that no one has brought up the Fair Tax 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]

ok...

> 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...

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?

 

[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 Democrats. :banghead:

 

[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.