The top individual tax rate should be no higher than the approval rating that Congress enjoys! Right now, that's roughly 12 to 13 percent.
Whattaya say?
Printable View
The top individual tax rate should be no higher than the approval rating that Congress enjoys! Right now, that's roughly 12 to 13 percent.
Whattaya say?
I say the tax rate should reflect the percentage of rich people, people making over 750,000 per year.
Let them pick up the slack.
They already do.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
Huh?
I was saying that if 10% of the pop makes more than 750k. Then that is all we should have to pay. 10%
Personally I would go as high as 1 million then the percentage would be less.
I just do not have enough data on this to accurately say which way it should go.
At the risk of being somewhat serious about this, how do those proposed rates correlate with what it actually costs to run the government and not plunge us even further into debt? Reducing the tax rate down to 10% sounds great, but if that was ever actually enacted, we'd decimate the military, our national defense, our infrastructure, army corps of engineers, etc.
I have a simpler idea, how about raise the tax exempt minimum income from where it is now, a.k.a. "the poverty level" to the level of either a single person's reasonable living wage or a family wage for married folks?
Let's say that $50k per year is the average living wage for a family, if you are filing as a married couple and you make less than that, then you don't pay taxes.
FYI, I say this as a single guy making about $40k, which is well above the average cost of living for a single guy in my area.
party pooper!Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
You are getting close to resonable...Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDubb65
first exempt the first 52k a year from each WAGE earner. no earned income credits no penalties/rewards for lifestyle choices (single, married civil union, kids.... no extra deductions.)
roll back the Johnson era "great society programs", eliminate the Roosevelt era social net and tax everybody 20% on every cent above the 52K threshold.
return to the states the social welfare programs, the education system, the endowment for the arts and allow each state to decide how they want to raise the money to pay for theses things and how they are administered.
Any department or program that is not specifically defined in the US constitution needs to be eliminated.... thus the federal government will not need all that much money, the states will need more but there will be one fewer layer of bureaucratic stupidity to pay so all the programs will cost less.
Everybody saves money we are all happier. I have nave seen the reason why one person wages is taxed at 6% or less and another's is taxed at 44% the people paying the higher amounts do not get special money or privliges... why should they be taxed differently?
alternately, we could simply tax the poor so much they get better jobs to pay their tax bill and then are not longer poor!:D
As to deficit spending ban it. the government should not be allowed to spend money that will never exist in the tax coffer... as for the debt we have now ...shake down the civil service union pension program, the members of the house and senate and the pres (including all past holders of the jobs) for every cent they have and make a payment on it once they do their part then maybe the people should be asked... the other alternative it to simply declared all the T-bills and FDR notes null and void and start all over!
one last think in this rant... every city,county,state and federal job should start at minimum wage and top out at 52K if people want more than than that they should get a job in the private sector.
Abolish the Federal Reserve. That would eliminate the deficit. We do not need a bunch of greedy bankers to print our money and then charge us interest on it. We can print our own money. Most of the tax revenues go towards paying off the federal debt. http://straightrazorpalace.com/image.../jedi.gifhttp: Off with their heads. http://straightrazorpalace.com/image...guillotine.gif
On the topic of taxing the rich this way and that, check this out that I found a while back in a chain email. I guess it doesn't quite fit in here, but I always found it to be pretty interesting food for thought.
Quote:
The Tax System - Explained With Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly applying the same percentages that each man paid to the new $80.00 amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
Wow. Interesting stuff!Quote:
Originally Posted by syslight
Billyjeff,
What gives you the idea I might not be serious? A 12 % FLAT TAX, with NO deductions and no tax shelers, would bring in a goodly sum! We're talking 12% of EVERY dollar earned in this country. And everyone would pay exactly the same tax rate. What could be more fair than that?
12 dollars on a hundred and $120,000 if you earn a million. No way to get out of paying your FAIR share. The size of the IRS could be reduced by at least 80% and the Tax Code could be printed on one 8 1/2 X 11 sheet of typing paper. Your tax return could be filed on a 3 x 5 notecard.
Most Federal Programs should be scaled WAY back. The Department of Energy was created to get us off of foreign oil. That was under Jimmy Carter. It would seem that neither of them were very effective. Carter was voted out and the Energy Department needs to be done away with. Although we DID give it almost thirty years more than we gave Carter.
:chop:
CUT THE FAT!
There's a ton of problems with your flat tax suggestion, and that's why it's never been given serious consideration.
Let's start out with the most obvious problem. Under the current (progressive) tax system, everyone who owes taxes pays the same rate within the same income strata (i.e. everyone pays the same rate on the first $10K, and then the next $20K and so on--my figures are just examples, not the actual tax numbers). The tax rate begins to escalate as the taxpayer's income goes higher, to the current max of (approx) 38%. Under the current system, folks at the lower end of the scale pay little or no income tax, the reason being if you're earning, say, $20K a year and have a wife and 2 kids to support, any tax liability would be financially devastating and beyond your financial ability to pay.
Now under your proposed system, everyone pays 12%. Unless you didn't mention exempting the lowest income earners, if they now have to pay 12% where under the present system they have little or no tax liability, guess who suffers? The folks who can least afford to pay.
But it gets worse under your proposal. This is because the wealthy, the very wealthy and the super wealthy,
who now pay significantly more that 12% of their total income, would see a HUGE reduction in their tax liability. So those who can most afford to pay taxes get a dramatic reduction. This, in turn, would result in a HUGE drop in overall revenue. As you postulated, if someone earns $1million per year in income, they'd only owe $120,000 in taxes, (as opposed to, say, $250-$300K under the current system, give or take). So the biggest winners would be the wealthy, the very wealthy, and the super wealthy, and the biggest losers would be those at the low and lowest end of the economic spectrum.
Now I suppose your response will be to "cut the fat" to make up for the drastic drop in tax revenue that would result under your proposal. Do away with, or severly scale back federal programs/agencies. Well, that's a nice idea that no one, and no political party, has been able to implement on any significant scale. Would you like to forfeit your social security benefits and retire on just whatever is in your personal savings account? Do you want to eviscerate our military with Draconian spending cuts? Do away with FEMA? NASA? The FAA? Want to leave it up to industry to police themselves in terms of medical or pharmacological safety? Want to take prescription meds that haven't been approved by the FDA? Want to leave it up to the meat industry to ensure our hamburger isn't contaminated with e-coli? Want to see the FBI budgetarily handicapped? How about if we do away with homeland security while we're at it?
If this is what you're willing to do, fine. But for me-no way.
A flat tax system sounds seductively simple; if things were truly that simple, it would have been done long ago. It would literally screw the middle and lower class wage earners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
The Anerican middle class has supported the majority of the world for years! Let's start by buying the United Nations building and getting out of the whole thing. And the reason I say to buy the building is so that we can get he United Nations out of the US while we are getting the US out of the UN.
The UN is made up of us and everyone else, who only want to get their hands as deeply into our pockets as possible! Who needs 'em?
BTW, there are not nearly enough super rich to foot the bills for every pork barrel project that a halfwitted 84 year old Senator, or Representative might be able to dream up.
I have already mentioned the Energy Department...what has it done in the last 30 years except grow and spend dollars? Who needs it, except the people who are slopping at that particular trough?
There's a lot of fat to trim! I haven't even got started yet. Like the hundreds of thousands that were handed out to study why men like to go to strip clubs. After several years and many dollars, the study was ended and the results published. Men like to go to strip bars because a lot of guys like to drink and a lot of guys like to watch an attravtive woman take her clothes off. There is a lot of overlap in the two groups. DUH... I could have told them that and I would have only charged twenty bucks.
The existance of a lot of Federal Bureaus is indefensible. I'll grant you, some are necessary, but many are a useless drain.
Not sure if your last post was in response to mine. In any event, all that you propose, from buying the UN building to eliminating unnecessary studies, is all well and good, but please be reminded that aside from the "bone in your throat" principle as to why many want to do away with ear marks and other so-called pork barrel spending, ear marks constitute approx. 2% of the total fiscal budget for '10. So if you were to eliminate 100% of the ear marks, you wouldn't come close to putting a dent in current spending. And what the US spends on/thru the UN is meaningless in the context of a discussion about taxing/spending --the amount involved is miniscule in relation to what this country spends.
My original point remains: imposing a 12% flat tax would be a financial disaster to this country's revenue needs, and to the middle class. On the other hand, it would be an unmitigated boon to the upper incomes classes, whose tax rates would plummet.
If I understood brother jeeter correctly, he was giving examples of things that could be cut rather than making a complete list. There is much more fat that could be cut than the UN building and earmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
PS it somehow bothers me when I hear you or anyone suggest that saving millions of dollars is not worth the effort as it is only a tiny percentage of the problem. Isn't this partially how the problem grows, that a few more million here and a few million more there is no big deal?
Billyjeff,
Hoglahoo is 'Zackley right. I was merely giving a FEW examples. The list was in no way comprehensive. End MOST foreign aid, deport as many illegal aliens as we can find. It may not get rid of 'em all, but every one (who is sucking up American resources and health care) is a step in the right direction. ELIMINATE ALL PORK from the budget. I don't care if Robert Byrd's name is gonna go on another building! We can't afford it.
There is a ton of C R A P in the budget.
The steps don't have to be big ones, they just have to go in the right direction.
Tom Clancy
Well, one man's pork is another man's livelihood. And while I agree with you in principle that there's much pork that can be eliminated, even if you eliminate "millions adding up to billions" my point remains the same--cuts totaling in the "billions" still won't come close to making a dent in the tax rate. As has been widely discussed, the only way of obtaining meaningful cuts in spending-the type of cuts that would have a tangible impact on what you and I pay in taxes each year, would involve reductions in entitlement programs, since they make up the overwhelming majority of the fiscal budget. Sorry-but it's not the illegal immigrants that's blowing up the budget, it's social security, medicaid, medicare, etc. So if you're willing to take a cut in your social security entitlement (current or future) by all means, please speak up. We need to hear from folks like you who are willing to do what it takes to tame this out of control entitlement beast. And if you are also willing to forgo any Medicaid or Medicare benefits (like those you or perhaps your elderly parents depend upon to help pay for their medical care and prescription drug bills) again, by all means please speak up and get your friends and relatives to do the same, cause that's where the meaningful entitlement cuts would come from.
And as to your suggestion about rounding up and deporting illegal aliens--sorry, but the costs associated with that would bust the budget!
It won't do a bit of good for me to turn on the light, when you stand there with your eyes tightly closed.
By that, I mean no matter what I suggest, "It's not enough, it's not enough..."
Perhaps not, but if we are going to get a handle on this thing, we need people who are willing to do something other than criticize the proprsed remedies.
Good night, Billyjeff.
I can assure you my eyes are fully open. If you read up on this issue, you will find the overwhelming factors contributing to the federal budget numbers we are, and have been, dealing with are entitlements. Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security. In fact Social Security represents the largest percentage of federal spending compared to all other categories, including military. Here's a link to the 2009 "pie chart" as to how federal spending is apportioned: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ycategory2.png.
The third largest category of spending, behind only military, is Medicare.
The various departments (EPA, Dept of Labor, etc) are miniscule in comparison.
So I'll say it one more time: Your suggestions about "eliminating all pork", buying the UN building, taken together won't amount to a hill of beans in terms of reigning in the federal budget. They are nothing more than "feel good" ideas. Plus, from a political perspective, there is no practical way you'll ever get a consensus about "eliminating all pork". Remember, for all the recent bellyaching by the Republicans about ear marks, fully 40% of the ear marks in the most recent budget were Republican sponsored. Republicans and Democrats will never agree to forgo all spending that funnels money into their home districts. Ain't never going to happen. So if you want to continue to vent about the small stuff, be my guest. But all that small stuff will never add up to anything of true financial significance, because when you're talking about multiple trillions in spending, millions and even billions of dollars aren't going to make a palpable impact.
So I'll throw it back to you: if we are seriously going to attempt to reduce spending, aside from going after the military, how would you propose we reduce entitlement spending? Means-testing for social security? Cuts in Medicaid/Medicare? Roll back of the prescription benefit program to the poor and elderly? Elimination of the S-CHIP health program for needy children? Do away with the recent tax reductions for the middle class? Increase taxes on wealthy Americans?
I'm open to your suggestions...
Okay Billyjeff. :rock:
I'm with you. You've convinced me! We should do absolutely nothing! I have always believed that there is no way a person can borrow their way to prosperity, but I suppose I was wrong. A Nation is only a household, MANY, MANY times over. But apparently what works in my house doesn't hold true for this Country. We CAN buy friends, we CAN spend everything we have, go borrow more and spend that, then go looking for another loan shark to hit up...all with NO concequences. BTW, don't worry about the bills, the past due notices, or the damage to our credit rating.
There HAS to be somebody else we can borrow from. We've already borrowd from all the other countries that will loan us a few billion. We've already borrowed from our reputation. We've already borrowed from our children...and their children...and probably THEIR children.
What was I thinking? Where do we sign? :rofl2:
Never said we should do "absolutely nothing". Look, you started this thread by proposing a flat tax rate of 12% without getting into the tough details of how we would deal with the reduced tax revenue this would entail. I'm merely saying that if you want to truly reduce government spending so that we can reduce the tax rates down to what you suggest, you need to address entitlement spending. Otherwise, dropping the tax rate to 12% will result in a drastic drop in tax revenue with no corresponding reduction in overall spending. And the only way to meaningfully reduce overall spending is to....you guessed it--reduce entitlement spending. So I'm not saying you should give up the concept of reducing spending so we can reduce taxes, but I am saying you'll never get close to the cuts you'd need to achieve through what you have suggested--won't even scratch the surface. Entitlement spending my friend-that's the ticket!
Wow, I agree with billyjeff2! But I see no reason why cutting taxes would present the current federal government with tough details in dealing with less revenue. The annual budget deficit continues to skyrocket while tax revenues drop and congressmen don't even bother to read trillion dollar bills before passing themQuote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
I forsee another cigarette sharing... I guess this would also qualify as oedipean - nice!Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Well the pie chart will turn very blue, which is really tough on the government's eyes. It has to be balanced by an orange twice as large as the blue, otherwise regular people do start eating pies, which has an unfortunate side effects. And I can finally use a smiley to depict exactly what I'm saying:Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
:chop:
why? what's your justification?Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
absolutely i would. if i could forfeit my right to social(ist) security if it meant i got to stop paying in right now, i would do it in a heartbeat. i'd invest the money now, and i assure you i'd do a helluva better job and get a much better ROI than the gov't tends to. ditto for medicaid (i'll never qualify for it anyhow) and medicare.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
I wonder: Why is it that whenever someone agrees with me on this board, they say something like:"Wow! I actually agree with billyjeff2!!", as if this is such an aberration? Each and every post I've ever made has been extremely well thought-out, and unassailably correct. Agreeing with what I have to say should be a given around here....:hmmm:
Here's my theory on it;
We recognize our posts usually make no sens, so it's amazing when a random post happens to match a well thought out one :). It's pretty sweet to find out you got it right even if it was just a shot in the dark :shrug:
I wonder: Why is it that whenever someone agrees with me on this board, they say something like:"Wow! I actually agree with billyjeff2!!", as if this is such an aberration? Each and every post I've ever made has been extremely well thought-out, and unassailably correct. Agreeing with what I have to say should be a given around here....:hmmm:
billyjeff2
Oh, you are so right...don't you remember, I agreed with everything you had to say?
I believe it's the synaptical brilliance of your brain cells that dazzles me.:bow
<!-- / message -->
Billyjeff...just look at the first sentence of my first post!
The top individual tax rate should be no higher than the approval rating that Congress enjoys!
It was satirical in nature. It means that I don't think Congress should have more money to play with, than the measure of what their constituents think of them. IF that indeed were the case, you can bet your LAST dollar that they would try to do things a bit differently. Like please the folks who have to actually PAY for all their idiocy.
Like say...if it were automatic, when Congress's approval rating gets up to 14.7%, then they can levy a 14.7% tax on the country. Conversely, when their aproval numbers sink, guess what? My taxes go down.
It was just a thought. A whimsical thought.
So don't wrench your shoulder patting yourself on the back, just yet...
So I spent all that time and intellectual treasure responding to what you now tell me was nothing more than a whimsical post?!? Do you realize that had I not been duped by you into thinking you were serious, I could have directed my vast intellectual powers to finding a solution to global warming AND solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Have you any idea what your little folly has cost the good of all mankind? I hope you have learned your lesson. Now please excuse me while I direct my huge intelliect towards solving the conundrum of mis-aligned toilet paper perforations...
So when are you gonna get around to solving the puzzle of faster than light travel, harnessing the power of black holes and discovering the secrets of cold fusion and time travel? So many problems, so few Billyjeffs...
I disagree: agreement is never a given. That should be a givenQuote:
Originally Posted by someone on this board
Well we know there are at least two of them right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
That's a fairly common argument against the very idea of cutting government spending, but I think it's quite flawed.
Everyone always pulls out these "we obviously can't cut this" sorts of examples.
Let me give you an example on a much smaller scale, just because it's simpler to look at.
When I was in college, I spent 3 years working at a nearby elementary school for an after-school program. Roughly 20% of our budget came out of the school's general fund. The rest came out of grants and voluntary fees from the parents of our students.
Just about the same time I started there, a new reading program was started at that school. This was completely separate from my after-school program. Bare in mind that this was a relatively small school. Maybe 800 total students.
This programs started with the hiring of two administrators both making over $100k/year, and the purchasing of $200k worth of materials.
These materials sat in an unused hallway for 2 years, while the administrators did basically nothing.
My third and final year there, they finally rolled out the program. This program, to put it nicely, was the most idiotic reading program I have ever encountered. The students would sound out words as with phonics programs, but with a twist. They were supposed to "bounce" each letter. To sound out the word "sandwich" they would say, out loud, "s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s, a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a, n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n, d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d, w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w, i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i, c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c, h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h" and from this they were supposed to gather that the word was, in fact, "sandwich."
Needless to say, it was utterly useless. In a reading period one day at the after school program, while dutifully assisting a 3rd grader with her reading, following the prescribed program, she looked up at me and said, "This seems really dumb. People don't talk like that. How come we're supposed to read like that?"
After 3 years, at a total expense to the tax payers of over $800k, even a 3rd grade child could see how useless and stupid the program was.
Because of the increased school budget due largely to this idiotic program, the 20% of our budget that came from the general fund was discontinued, and the program was forced to close. That's why I only worked there for 3 years.
Our entire government works the same way. It is a massive and incalculable bureaucracy which consumes a great deal to accomplish very little by comparison.
Simplifying our tax structure is one of the easiest things we could do. By going to a flat tax, with a standard deduction of somewhere between 30 and 60 thousand, you could greatly alleviate the burden on the poor and middle classes, and keep the structure progressive, because let's face it, nobody over a certain level of income pays and meaningful percentage of taxes at all. Frankly, if all write-offs were done away with, I suspect that 12% would be an enormous tax rate, far and above anything that was needed.
Meanwhile, by doing this, you could all but eliminate the entire IRS.
Then look at the military, don't cut the spending on troop salaries, or equipment, or maintenance, but reduce administrative personnel by 80%. Our military would probably function BETTER, and at a fraction of the cost.
Set a VERY low ratio of school administrators to students, with an equally low administrator per school cap, and you could reduce the budget for public education by half without cutting a single program.
And, my favorite idea of all, which should be applied universally, is this:
The holding of a government office, or any form of employment by the government, including everything from the President down to people who simply live off the dole, should immediately void a person's right of suffrage until such time as they are no longer financially dependent on the state.
This does NOT discriminate against the poor, because the homeless could still vote. People working at McDonald's for minimum wage could still vote. People who are out of work and living day to day searching for work could vote, BUT people who live on the dole could not. Public school teachers could not vote. Public works employees, and IRS auditors, and anyone else could not vote.
The only exceptions I would put to that would be people who put their lives on the line for public safety and freedom, to whit, Police officers, Firefighters, and active duty soldiers. However, ONLY those people should be an exception. Being a secretary at the police station shouldn't count, etc.
And, if we're going all "Ceasar's Column" anyway, I say make all forms of finacial lobbying a form of treason, as well as any other attempt, successful or not, to buy or sell votes of any kind, or to defraud voters in any way. And I mean treason, as in, enemy of the state, punishable by death for the harm it does to democracy.
Although I could do it, it would take me so long to reply to all the points made in the above-post I won't even bother. Suffice it to say that the suggestion of denying most government workers the ability to vote, which is a constitutionally granted right, is absurd. Or more precisely-unconstitutional. You can't require people to forfeit a constitutional right as a condition of employment.
As to the flat tax concept: If no one who earns up to $60K per year has to pay taxes, and if the tax rate of the wealthy is dropped down to 12%, the reduction in overall tax revenue compared to what is received under the current system would be astounding.
And to suggest that we execute lobbyists---rather than respond to that kind of nonsensical idea, I shall instead devote my considerable intellectual talents to solving some of the world's more pressing problems, like uncovering what exactly Toostie rolls are made of...
They are obviously rolls of "Tootsie."
BTW, have you ever wondered if one of the dollar bills in your wallet were ever in a stripper's butt crack?
If not, you're wondering now.
Have a nice day . :rofl2:
Well, since you made considerably fewer points, I will happily address them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
1. Stating that something is presently unconstitutional is quite irrelevant. At one point in American history, the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol was unconstitutional, as was letting women and blacks vote. Of course, the original constitution had no objection to the ownership of slaves either.
The constitution was designed as a living document that could change as the needs of the country changed. (we're up to 27 amendments now aren't we?) If as a people, we were to finally figure out that people who live off the governmetn shouldn't be directing the government, there is nothing to stop the constitution being changed again.
2. A 12% tax rate would probably NOT be a tax cut for the super rich. The super rich in this country rarely pay more than 1 or 2% in taxes. Many multi-billion dollar corporations pay virtually nothing in taxes at all because of our insane tax write-offs.
Even if it was an enourmos loss of revenue, following my other ideas about reducing government overhead could easily make up the cost. Our government is uselessly bloated and needs to go on a diet like a fat guy headed to his high school reunion.
If it turned out that 12% was too low, then make it 20% With a standard deduction of $60k, a person making 100k would pay a total of 8% of his income in taxes. The progressive scale is built right in. The tax wouldn't flatten out until you looked at people which such high incomes that a $60k standard deduction was irrelevant. In many respects this would be far MORE progressive than our current structure.
3. As for your assertion that treating financial lobbying (please note that I have now twice specified financial lobbying) as form of treason is "nonsense," we must simply agree to disagree. I think history has shown us that financial lobbying is the bane of democracy.
We live in a country where congressional votes are bought and sold by special interest groups, who promis to help with the next election. To attempt to buy a person's vote (private or congressional) or to sell your own vote (private or congressional) is an affront to all that this country once stood for. It is an insult to our constitution, to our founding fathers, and to the men and women who have fought and died to ensure we continue to have that freedom.
I have no substantive disagreement with you over the concept of attempting to eliminate or curtail the type of lobbying you speak of. But I still say your idea of imposing capital punishment is, well, not a very good idea. Stick to the concept of stopping/limiting lobbying and drop the death penalty part and you'll have a much better chance of attracting some support....Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDubb65