Wanna go back to the Union Topic?

[Campy]

Flat Tax. There are no deductions. The tax rates would be smaller, which negates the deductions you would have received. Smaller government requires less tax revenue to sustain itself.

283189[/snapback]

Without deductions, how would the decrease in charitable donations be offset?

[KRC]

Without deductions, how would the decrease in charitable donations be offset?

283203[/snapback]

 

How is that the responsibility of the government? Charitable contributions are just that: donations to the charities of your choice. No government intervention.

 

Since you have less money being stolen by the government, you have more available to help people via your favorite charities.

[Campy]

How is that the responsibility of the government? Charitable contributions are just that: donations to the charities of your choice. No government intervention.

 

Since you have less money being stolen by the government, you have more available to help people via your favorite charities.

283208[/snapback]

I was thinking the tax rate would remain constant to balance the budget and possibly pay down some of the debt.

 

The tax rate can be cut and the budget balanced only through cuts in a lot of programs. What/where would you cut?

[KRC]

I was thinking the tax rate would remain constant to balance the budget and possibly pay down some of the debt. 

 

The tax rate can be cut and the budget balanced only through cuts in a lot of programs.  What/where would you cut?

283220[/snapback]

 

Damn, it's like being on the campaign trail again.

 

The first thing you need to address is the waste. Too much bureauracy. Start cleaning house.

 

I would freeze tax rates where they are for now. When waste is reduced, it will give extra money to reduce the deficit. Once the deficit has been reduced, I can then give across the board tax cuts. Same percentage, regardless of how much you earn.

 

Next, privatize SS. I am talking about a full privitization of it. Obviously, this will need to be done in stages in order to ease people into the system. Older folks will see no change, but if you are just entering the workforce, you will see full privitization. If you want the safety of SS, then invest in government bonds. If you want additional risk pick mutual funds. The government will get out of managing your money for you. They have proven that they cannot do it, so why continue down the road of proven failure. SS cannot work becuase it has not been designed to account for changes in the future (increased life expectency, changes in the workforce, etc). To quote AD, "It is like putting a Band-aid on a brain tumor."

 

As President (I like the sound of that), I would never submit a budget that is not at least balanced but preferably contains a surplus. Obviously, since the President has no control over the purse-strings, I will tell Congress that I will veto any budget that is not at least balanced.

 

Next, I will address education. The federal government has no business being in education. I want to move it down to where it belongs: the local level. That way, parents have more direct input on how money is spent and how to teach their children. In order to placate the people who feel that the federal government needs to control all aspects of our lives, I will designate block grants for education. It will be up to the local governments to allocate these resources. No input from the federal government.

 

I could go on and on regarding various programs. Mainly, we should privatize the bulk of them. The reduction in workforce in the federal government will be offset by the increase in these services being provided by the private sector. You increase your tax base, decrease the revenue needed to run the government, which in turn decreases the taxes for all of us. There is no question that the private sector can provide these services cheaper then anything the government will provide.

 

How is that for a start?

[nobody]

Of course, the concept of taxing people for producing and earning is ludicrous to begin with.  All taxes should be based on consumption, not production.

 

 

So you wouldn't mind scraping the income tax system for a national sales tax?

 

Of course the govt would still throw in too many loopholes with any plan they use.

[nobody]

In a word: YES.

 

Michael Moore is a liar and professional propagandist for the union movement and the Democratic party.

 

He is as masterful a propagandist as any Soviet or Nazi film maker.

283076[/snapback]

 

 

Unions & Democrats = nazis

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Unions & Democrats = nazis

283303[/snapback]

 

I couldn't agree more. Now you're seeing the light.

[nobody]

No, I'm not saying that at all, in fact, I'm saying the opposite.  The poor would pay a much greater percentage of his low income on our fictitious milk tax leaving less money for other puchases, which are essentially contributions to to the economy (survival goods, luxury items, and lastly, investments).

 

The wealthy can afford bear a bigger tax burdern without adversely effecting their contributions to the economy in terms of consumption, and there simply aren't enough of them, and they can't just consume enough, to offset the loss of the majority poor/lower income people's contribution to the economy. 

 

You aren't the first person to have the consumption-tax idea, and I'm only passing on what I understand the argument against that to be, and frankly, I can see where they were coming from.

283170[/snapback]

 

 

You would think the right wing would be all in favor of that system.

[Campy]

Damn, it's like being on the campaign trail again. 

 

.......

 

How is that for a start? 

283249[/snapback]

I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but you did pretty well for pop-quiz!

 

While I agree with the principle that SS is not run very well, I can't help but wonder if the burdens placed on society when the irresponsible age would outweigh the benefits gained via privatization... Just thinking out loud, I guess.

[Terry Tate]

No, I'm not saying that at all, in fact, I'm saying the opposite.  The poor would pay a much greater percentage of his low income on our fictitious milk tax leaving less money for other puchases, which are essentially contributions to to the economy (survival goods, luxury items, and lastly, investments).

 

The wealthy can afford bear a bigger tax burdern without adversely effecting their contributions to the economy in terms of consumption, and there simply aren't enough of them, and they can't just consume enough, to offset the loss of the majority poor/lower income people's contribution to the economy. 

 

You aren't the first person to have the consumption-tax idea, and I'm only passing on what I understand the argument against that to be, and frankly, I can see where they were coming from.

283170[/snapback]

Fairtax FAQ list.

[Campy]

Fairtax FAQ list.

283329[/snapback]

I'm not sure I follow

[KRC]

While I agree with the principle that SS is not run very well, I can't help but wonder if the burdens placed on society when the irresponsible age would outweigh the benefits gained via privatization.

283324[/snapback]

 

That is the problem. The entitlement mentality needs to be broken. It is not the federal government's responsibility to protect you from yourself. I will make it even easier for people. The funds deducted from your paycheck go directly into a money market account set up by your employer (again, keeping the government out of it). If you do not know what to do or if you are uncomfortable with investing, just leave the money alone. It will only earn a small amount in interest, but it will keep it safe. You have to make an effort to roll it over into stocks/bonds/mutual funds.

 

Why should hardworking taxpayers support people who are irresponsible? Someone gets greedy and places their retirement money in high risk stocks because they want a large payday should not be rewarded for their irresponsible behavior.

 

Personal accountability.

[Terry Tate]

I'm not sure I follow

283343[/snapback]

It's the consumption tax web site FAQ list (dubbed 'fair tax' by it's supporters). It has a list of it's arguments for the most common oppositions raised. Just thought I'd throw that out there if you (or anyone else) wanted to see the counters.

[Campy]

Why should hardworking taxpayers support people who are irresponsible? Someone gets greedy and places their retirement money in high risk stocks because they want a large payday should not be rewarded for their irresponsible behavior.

283352[/snapback]

There's the catch-22. As much as I dislike it, those who are irresponsible or those who are uber-aggresive with their privatized SS accounts will end up being a burden on society - uninsured healthcare and homelessness just to name a couple of examples. The burden that would inevitably fall to taxpayers to support those people would be much larger than it is now IMO.

[KRC]

There's the catch-22.  As much as I dislike it, those who are irresponsible or those who are uber-aggresive with their privatized SS accounts will end up being a burden on society - uninsured healthcare and homelessness just to name a couple of examples.  The burden that would inevitably fall to taxpayers to support those people would be much larger than it is now IMO.

283474[/snapback]

 

That is the beauty of my plan. It does not fall to the taxpayers, since the federal government is no longer responsible for welfare or for healthcare.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

There's the catch-22.  As much as I dislike it, those who are irresponsible or those who are uber-aggresive with their privatized SS accounts will end up being a burden on society - uninsured healthcare and homelessness just to name a couple of examples.  The burden that would inevitably fall to taxpayers to support those people would be much larger than it is now IMO.

283474[/snapback]

 

They wouldn't ahve the opportunity to be "uber-agressive" Their choices would be limited.

[KRC]

They wouldn't ahve the opportunity to be "uber-agressive" Their choices would be limited.

283487[/snapback]

 

Who is making he choices of where you can invest? The government? The government will tell you what you can and cannot invest in with your money?

 

That's not very Libertarian of you.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Who is making he choices of where you can invest? The government? The government will tell you what you can and cannot invest in with your money?

 

That's not very Libertarian of you. 

283490[/snapback]

 

I'm just relaying the nature of the plan as it stands today. if you asked me, I'd say scrap SS altogether and use the $$ to pay off the debt.

[Campy]

That is the beauty of my plan. It does not fall to the taxpayers, since the federal government is no longer responsible for welfare or for healthcare.

283482[/snapback]

Just in the 2 examples I used, I don't see how it couldn't fall to the taxpayers - Perhaps not "as" taxpayers, but as consumers.

 

Healthcare costs will rise even more to compensate for the healthcare provided to those unable to pay for it - kinda' like how we all pay the literal price for shoplifting.

 

With increased homelessness, the societal ills that go along with it (increased theft and violent crime, larger amount of unemployable labor, malnutrition, drug and alcohol abuse, etc) will ultimately end up increasing as well.

 

I'm not altogether altruistic about this stuff. It's just that I'm not sold on the idea of how allowing that many more people to fall through the cracks (for lack of a better term) will not ultimately be more expensive and less efficient than current SS.

[KRC]

I'm not altogether altruistic about this stuff.  It's just that I'm not sold on the idea of how allowing that many more people to fall through the cracks (for lack of a better term) will not ultimately be more expensive and less efficient than current SS.

283505[/snapback]

 

Well, SS will fail. We will continue to see less and less benefits as we continue to send more and more money to Washington. Eventually, you will have NOBODY collecting SS but still paying into the system, while all of the problems you mention will still be the responsibility of the taxpayers (just create more government programs). Everything you mention will still be created under SS, unless a new system is put in place. The fundamental design of SS will prevent it from ever working.

 

I would rather take my money and invest it. At least that way, I know where it is and have full control over how I manage it. The alternative has proven to fail.

 

I do not see how SS can prevent the exact scenario you are mentioning. At least with privatization, we and our kids and grandkids have a fighting chance.