Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I disagree. I think that if every entity with a legal right to engage in commerce knew they were being taxed at 7% on their income and 7% on their retail consumption it would add a great deal of certainty to the market place.
There may be a few lawyers and accountants looking for work, but they're usually smart. They'll adapt.
You'll have a tough time selling that to a business like a grocery store that operates with like a 3% profit margin. All business is not equal and all do not share equal risk and investment. It is a pretty good prescription for running all the rest of our manufacturing base out of the country though.
Why? Why would an understandable and simple tax rate scare away manufacturing when the lawyers wet-dream we call a tax code now doesn't seem to?
You'll have a tough time selling that to a business like a grocery store that operates with like a 3% profit margin. All business is not equal and all do not share equal risk and investment. It is a pretty good prescription for running all the rest of our manufacturing base out of the country though.
Why? Why would an understandable and simple tax rate scare away manufacturing when the lawyers wet-dream we call a tax code now doesn't seem to?
For one thing, you can be undercut very easily. If the US is charging 6% income tax on what you sell, move your business offshore to a country that will tax you 5%. Not that hard to understand.
Simple is usually better; not always.
I agree simpler is better but there is a point where too simple = loss of opportunity.
For example...math and science education. You make 100% of that education deductible while not offering that same incentive for, lets say, lawyers and finance. People on the fence about becoming engineers or something else may go/get steered toward being an engineer or clinical researcher which, in the long run, will benefit this nation. Thats not "currying favor" as you say at least as far as I can see.
Certainly some incentives will do just what you said and thats not what I'm talking about. But, for example, you'd like to make payroll tax deductible; I say only do that if the company is going to hire the person directly; not through an agency that pays no benefits or retirement planning; no tax deduction for McJobs.
Again, I think that is why we need to elevate the tax code and a whole raft of other important things above the variable winds of politics and put such matters out of the reach of opportunistic politicians and perhaps revisit them every ten years or so
Your ideas are good.
I disagree. Not that my ideas are good, I like my ideas.
I disagree that the tax code should be used for anything but collecting taxes.
Taxes are taxes and spending is spending. The two should never cross paths. If The People want to give anything, be it commerce, welfare or education, a 'government incentive', it should be in the form of a spending bill that specifies the amount and the time frame, including an end date to the donation, and any strings that are attached. Everyone keeps paying the same taxes they always have. Simple taxes = fair taxes.
Perfectly valid point.
If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region....do you think the government should have no business trying to make sure that those persons have access to health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water, etc...
For a private company to relocate or provide basic services to such places would be totally illogical without incentives. You would want to Subsidize Con Edison or Comcast or Humana (and in the process taking our tax money and giving it to a private corporation) instead of simply offering an incentive for those corporations to provide service?
Really?
I disagree. Not that my ideas are good, I like my ideas.
I disagree that the tax code should be used for anything but collecting taxes.
Taxes are taxes and spending is spending. The two should never cross paths. If The People want to give anything, be it commerce, welfare or education, a 'government incentive', it should be in the form of a spending bill that specifies the amount and the time frame, including an end date to the donation, and any strings that are attached. Everyone keeps paying the same taxes they always have. Simple taxes = fair taxes.
Perfectly valid point.
If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region....do you think the government should have no business trying to make sure that those persons have access to health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water, etc...
For a private company to relocate or provide basic services to such places would be totally illogical without incentives. You would want to Subsidize Con Edison or Comcast or Humana (and in the process taking our tax money and giving it to a private corporation) instead of simply offering an incentive for those corporations to provide service?
Really?
If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region, you do so by choice. It is not the federal government's responsibility to see that you have health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water etc. It is the resposibility of the people who choose to live someplace to form a society that provides for the needs and aesthetics of that society. Nobody in New Jersey should be responsible for providing internet to somebody in West Texas.
Perfectly valid point.
If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region....do you think the government should have no business trying to make sure that those persons have access to health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water, etc...
For a private company to relocate or provide basic services to such places would be totally illogical without incentives. You would want to Subsidize Con Edison or Comcast or Humana (and in the process taking our tax money and giving it to a private corporation) instead of simply offering an incentive for those corporations to provide service?
Really?
If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region, you do so by choice. It is not the federal government's responsibility to see that you have health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water etc. It is the resposibility of the people who choose to live someplace to form a society that provides for the needs and aesthetics of that society. Nobody in New Jersey should be responsible for providing internet to somebody in West Texas.
And we see why libertarianism has never caught on...anywhere. Ever.
The way you've worded it doesn't result in the desired goal.
"ALL forms of charity and benevolence" could easily be argued that the government wouldn't be allowed to spend on anything but its own defense. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want, and at any rate is certainly not a tenable situation.
I guess I don't see the problem you see with that. Could you clarify?
I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.
That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.
And if we went back to it, that would take care of most lobbying problems.
No foreign aid?
Imagine this situation;
A major emerging power, seen as a strategic threat to the United States, is travelling about the world dishing out largesse to smaller and poorer countries to gain access to their territories and resources and their general goodwill.
How would you respond?
If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region, you do so by choice. It is not the federal government's responsibility to see that you have health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water etc. It is the resposibility of the people who choose to live someplace to form a society that provides for the needs and aesthetics of that society. Nobody in New Jersey should be responsible for providing internet to somebody in West Texas.
And we see why libertarianism has never caught on...anywhere. Ever.
That isn't libertarianism. That's common sense.
I guess I don't see the problem you see with that. Could you clarify?
I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.
That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.
And if we went back to it, that would take care of most lobbying problems.
No foreign aid?
Imagine this situation;
A major emerging power, seen as a strategic threat to the United States, is travelling about the world dishing out largesse to smaller and poorer countries to gain access to their territories and resources and their general goodwill.
How would you respond?
No foreign aid from the Federal government. The government could put out a call for aid and accept freewill offerings from the people, and if the cause is worthy, the people will come through in aces. The federal government could assist with transport and disbursement of the donations. But the federal government should not be able to hand over the people's money to another government.
No foreign aid?
Imagine this situation;
A major emerging power, seen as a strategic threat to the United States, is travelling about the world dishing out largesse to smaller and poorer countries to gain access to their territories and resources and their general goodwill.
How would you respond?
No foreign aid from the Federal government. The government could put out a call for aid and accept freewill offerings from the people, and if the cause is worthy, the people will come through in aces. The federal government could assist with transport and disbursement of the donations. But the federal government should not be able to hand over the people's money to another government.
Is that common sense too and not Libertarianism?
Actually, thats a pretty complete mis-representation of what I wrote. At no point do I call for dissolution of the Constitution. Never did. What I do want to do is perfect the document to address the real life challenges for the 21st century.
How high do you want the debt ceiling to go? Until you put something in the source coding of the country about it; the sky isn't the limit....I think that limit may be interstellar space! LOL.
Thats just one of the many real life problems we face and there is absolutely nothing that is going to be done about it. Lets say that Boehner and Obama can come to an understanding; next President who knows?
Anyway, I never said dissolve the Constitution. Never.
Shut your fucking mouth bro. Now your gonna back track out of your bullshit? Man you're pathetic, You can't even stand up for yourself and the crap you blow out of your pie hole? His response to you went right over your dumb ass head. It's our Constitutional right to demand that the Federal Government honor the Constitution, But you're too brainwashed and weak minded to comprehend that. Uncensored2008 was talking about me, because he know's that I stand for the Constitution just as he does, unlike a puke bag like you. Why don't you go jump off a bridge bro.
Tell yuh what,I am going to mind fuck you for the next few weeks until the point where you won't even want to log in here anymore. You gutless, yes man toad.
~BH
Yawn!
Well, THIS certainly turned into a productive conversation!
What about fair taxes and appropriate regulation? Anyone still want to talk about fixing things with out flaming, labeling and name calling like a bunch of 13 year old girls?
Agreed. Some people don't know how to be civil. I respond in the manner in which I'm debated.
Until we fix the source document that allows for any and all measures be they for good or for ill in the long term....it doesn't really matter; the fixes proposed are temporary in nature.
I do think that we need much stronger regulation and audit capabilities of those regulatory bodies. As for fair taxes...well I think we need to make the taxes much simpler and close almost all loopholes. At the same time, I think we need to expand the deductions for things like medical care and the total costs of college and or training; maybe scale it back in some cases such as 100% deductibility for math and engineering majors and maybe only 25% deductibility for those wanting to major in jurisprudence.
~BH
No foreign aid from the Federal government. The government could put out a call for aid and accept freewill offerings from the people, and if the cause is worthy, the people will come through in aces. The federal government could assist with transport and disbursement of the donations. But the federal government should not be able to hand over the people's money to another government.
Is that common sense too and not Libertarianism?
I imagine many if not most or all libertarians would agree with that, but for me it is just common sense if you want a government for, of, and by the people and not one that governs the people.
Take it to the flame zone please guys, so we don't land the whole thread there? I would appreciate that soooo much.
And we see why libertarianism has never caught on...anywhere. Ever.
That isn't libertarianism. That's common sense.
Sounds like libertarianism....I'm curious...do the citizens of New Jersey have to pay for water inspectors in Florida...cattle inspectors in Iowa....or interstates in Colorado? Nobody is forcing you to drink the water in Florida, beef from Iowa, or drive on the interstates in Colorado?
Is that common sense too and not Libertarianism?
I imagine many if not most or all libertarians would agree with that, but for me it is just common sense if you want a government for, of, and by the people and not one that governs the people.
It doesn't sound like you want to fix anything; overthrow is what you want if you don't want a government that governs anyone?
That made no sense at all....
We have laws that govern behavior. We have laws that govern any number of things...from what is aired on the public airwaves to what is in the drinking water....
I say this not trying to flame you....I'm not sure YOU know what you want.
In a book released (in 2009), Scott Rasmussen observed that, The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century. He added that The American people dont want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves. In Search of Self-Governance is available at Amazon.com.
Take it to the flame zone please guys, so we don't land the whole thread there? I would appreciate that soooo much.
He's talking to himself.
Again politely asking the courtesy of the food fight moving to the flame zone so that a more civil discussion can continue on this thread.
Focusing on No. 5 on the list, for a bit, a number of members have checked that as desirable option.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Founders, using the people's money for any form of charity or benevolence at the federal level is corrupting to those in government. It is just too tempting to use it to increase the elected leaders' personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And when one does it, the next one almost has to go along or look like a heartless monster. It's kind of like earmarks. A person can philosophically reject them as irresponsible, but when everybody is grabbing money for their home districts, the politician doesn't want their own district to be left high and dry because after all it is their money too.
And the other unintended negative consequence is an electorate that becomes dependent on and develops a sense of entitlement to other people's money.
For whatever reason, that phenomenon seems to happen far less often and/or with less intensity at the state level.
So what do you think? In the interest of scaling back an unsustainably expensive federal government and eliminating the unintended negative consequences, if done slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those we have made dependent on the programs, would you agree to begin now to phase out federal entitlement and charity programs and transfer them to the states?
Again politely asking the courtesy of the food fight moving to the flame zone so that a more civil discussion can continue on this thread.
Focusing on No. 5 on the list, for a bit, a number of members have checked that as desirable option.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Founders, using the people's money for any form of charity or benevolence at the federal level is corrupting to those in government. It is just too tempting to use it to increase the elected leaders' personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And when one does it, the next one almost has to go along or look like a heartless monster. It's kind of like earmarks. A person can philosophically reject them as irresponsible, but when everybody is grabbing money for their home districts, the politician doesn't want their own district to be left high and dry because after all it is their money too.
And the other unintended negative consequence is an electorate that becomes dependent on and develops a sense of entitlement to other people's money.
For whatever reason, that phenomenon seems to happen far less often and/or with less intensity at the state level.
So what do you think? In the interest of scaling back an unsustainably expensive federal government and eliminating the unintended negative consequences, if done slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those we have made dependent on the programs, would you agree to begin now to phase out federal entitlement and charity programs and transfer them to the states?
I think, to make a start on that sort of reform, you need to somehow put a brake on the lobbyists in Washington with direct access to your representatives.
That way, they will have to listen to the community they are elected to represent, not just the special interest groups.
