Creating Fair Taxation

That's the part of this proposal that I like and that I think makes it work. It's basically the Hall-Rabushka model. It's also really discouraging to hear Republican tax plan proposals that claim to be "flat tax", but are really just weird low income punishing consumption taxes with no promise of basic infrastructure spending.

 

Senator Rand Paul actually made a flat tax proposal that was vaguely similar to mine but it failed on three counts.

He included an "Exemption" to replace "Deductions" that would have resulted in 47% of all income households having no income tax liability and that's about what we have now with deductions. The problem was that the "Exemption" was based upon statutory control so Congress could change it based upon a whim while my proposal is based upon an "economic indicator" (median income) that Congress can't define and mine covers 50% of all income households which is slightly more than the current (nefarious) "Deduction" based tax codes. His basically left Congress able to continue it's nefarious actions by changing what the "Exemption" is based upon political or partisan whim.

The next problem is that he didn't treat all income the same regardless of source. Apparently Senator Paul doesn't believe that a "dollar is a dollar" and he left the division of "earned income v unearned income" inherent in the Capital Gains tax loophole. The Republican argument for the Capital Gains tax loophole is that investment funds enterprise and that benefits the economy but that's a myth. Of all the SEC tracked investments that fall into the category of "capital gains" less than 0.0005% of the investment capital actually goes to enterprise as a "primary investment" (i.e. a direct purchase of stock from a corporation). Over 99.99% of investments are in secondary investment markets that don't benefit enterprise or the economy.

Finally he arbitrarily established the tax rate that would be controlled by Congress and it was far less than what's required to fund the spending authorization by Congress. Basically his proposal created indefinite deficit spending and an ever increasing national debt by setting an arbitrarily low tax rate that was unrelated to the spending authorizations of Congress.

So in principle Senator Paul was on the right track with his "flat tax" proposal but his proposal basically failed because of those three major flaws with it.

I wish I could share the original link to his proposal but when I upgraded to Windows 10 it removed Internet Explorer and replaced it with "Edge" and all my bookmarks on Internet Explorer were lost in the process. I'm kicking myself in the ass for upgrading because it's been a nightmare of lost links and misplaced files that I previously had.

 

Why not end the need for a Tax on Incomes of real Persons, by ending our useless "wars" on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

Notice how crime, drugs, poverty all work together?

The drug industry is doing well because they have customers. The best way to win the war on drugs is to stop buying drugs. The war on poverty... stop looking to the government to provide your needs and go to work. More people working, less customers for drugs.

 

Not at all; Prohibition causes crime, drug use, and poverty. That is how they work together with the Peoples' tax monies. The right is merely cognitively dissonant and this is not a "twice a day" moment.

 

lol, prohibition effects me too but it is my decision not to be part of the problem. I don't buy drugs, I don't steal to pay for drugs, and I work smart, hard and don't do drugs so I don't live in poverty.

"I WON" the war on crime, drugs and poverty without government spending "the people's hard earned money".

 

No, you didn't. You are whining about the cost of your Orwellian, right wing fantasy. Stop whining and start claiming you love your PoliceStateUSA.

 

So you didn't like my answer and you respond with attempt to insult.

lol, prohibition effects me too but it is my decision not to be part of the problem. I don't buy drugs, I don't steal to pay for drugs, and I work smart, hard and don't do drugs so I don't live in poverty.

"I WON" the war on crime, drugs and poverty without government spending "the people's hard earned money".

 

Prohibition affects everyone who has to pay taxes for our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror as well.

Just being cognitively dissonant, Person on the right?

 

With a federal budget of roughly $3.5 trillion you're addressing an insignificant percentage of spending and arguably the "wars" on crime, poverty, and terror domestically are absolutely necessary to protect the Rights of the American People. I would agree with ending the "war on drugs" because that's addressing victimless crime but poverty, crime, and terrorism are all cases where there are victims.

 

Based upon our current tax codes about 47% of the American working families are living in poverty because they can't afford to pay even one dime in personal income taxes to the federal government. Poverty has virtually nothing to do with illegal drug usage or to whether the person is hard working because poverty is overwhelmingly related to hard working American families.

Anecdotally I've done recreational drugs, predominately marijuana but also other drugs including cocaine and LSD, since the late 1960's and it never adversely affected my employment or income that, for several years prior to retirement, was a six-digit income. The only problem I had was the laws of prohibition that dramatically increased the costs of the "recreational drugs" and that the laws also placed me at potential risk of arrest and prosecution. Other than that I've enjoyed every "illegal" drug I've ever used and there have been no negative effects on income or employment.

On the flip side the legal drug of alcohol can and does have a serious negative impact on lives of people and it can easily create adverse effects on income and employment.

 

what is your position on taxes? why nothing but diversion and special pleading, are you on the right?

No, you didn't. You are whining about the cost of your Orwellian, right wing fantasy. Stop whining and start claiming you love your PoliceStateUSA.

I have heard, "if it is not Treason, it must be, just politics.

 

"special pleading" lol.... you're babbling AGAIN lol

What you don't understand is I have more control. If I make a lot of money, I simply cut back and use the tax code. I also don't invest "more of my money" if all I'm going to do is pay a lot more taxes. Investing my money, hiring more people, only for government to take so much away doesn't make sense so I sit on my money and take it easy. You can wait for a poor man to hire you.

 

the point is, dear; that the capital gains distinction is not very useful for full employment purposes.

since it doesn't work; it should be abolished in favor of something that does.

 

In the medical field we could be drug tested anytime and if you test positive you lose your job. Then again there have been cases where nurses steal patient pain pills from the med cart instead of giving the pain medication to the patients. I suppose you won't mind that either.

But ok, you want to legalize drugs, obviously you wouldn't mind nurse druggie taking care of you some day.

 

it is about forms of taxes you claim to hate so much. are ignorant of them?

Google is your friend. Simply arguing against the Person instead of providing a valid argument, is usually considered a fallacy and error in reasoning.

 

LOL,

I know, you love giving your money away for government to waste. Or are you one of those "takers"?

 

There are random drug tests in many industries and the primary drug they're testing for is marijuana that remains in the person's system for almost a month. Most drugs can't be isolated after 12-24 hours and some, like LSD, can't be detected at all. So if someone smoked marijuana yesterday, or last week, and aren't under the mild influence of the drug at all they can be terminated. It's absurd because there was never a logical reason behind making marijuana, a completely non-lethal mild intoxicant, illegal in the first place. What was interesting in aerospace is that companies like Boeing and Northrop didn't mind if an employee went out at lunch and had a beer or shot of whiskey but one hit of marijuana was grounds for termination.

No one should be intoxicated at work on anything where their judgment is impaired to the point that endangers themselves or others. I have no idea where anyone could came up with a belief that such behavior is acceptable.

What they do at home is their own business where they're not harming anyone if they have a couple of beers, smoke a little pot, or do a little cocaine or even a little heroin or opium and it's none of the damn government's business or anyone else's business for that matter.

 

But did you say people always do as they should?

Did you say people will use common sense?

Did you say that people who smoke pot won't take a hit on the way into work?

 

Not at all dear; all Capitalists need do is provide a Jobs Boom for the privilege of that distinction and preference.

 

There are always jobs available. Just check the newspapers. It's much more likely employment will be found where the jobs exist so you may have to extend your search and even move. That's why humans have feet, we are a very mobile species, who have populated the Earth long before cars, planes, boats, and public transportation became available.

 

"for the privilege of that distinction and preference" lol, you really do talk weird.

Create jobs boom? Why should we? You want us to invest (risk) our money which if we did would result in the creation of jobs BUT if we make a profit you support the government taking a huge chunk from us. So why is it we should risk our money? LOL, no thanks. You believe in trickle up, let the poor man create "a jobs boom".

 

Why should you get a tax preference for having enough to invest? Why not tax it as ordinary income, if there is no Jobs Boom for Labor?

Unlike the right, some on the left believe in market friendly metrics. Simply increasing the current cost of "speculating" in markets should cause more money to be spent on current consumption and require Labor to meet that increased consumption.

 

The New York Times is currently posting 176,116 job ads. California (40187)

From the Chicago Tribune job ads in the following States totalling more than 100,000 are to be found.
Texas (31239)
Florida (23999)
Illinois (20273)
New York (17064)
Ohio (16293)
Pennsylvania (15752)
Georgia (11979)
Michigan (11319)
North Carolina (1111
New Jersey (1085
Virginia (10504)
Indiana (10262)
Massachusetts (9596)
Arizona (9130)
Maryland (8851)
Tennessee (820
Colorado (7931)
Washington (781
Minnesota (7781)
Missouri (7147)
Wisconsin (6590)
Kentucky (6216)
South Carolina (5746)
Connecticut (5473)
Kansas (4521)
Iowa (4256)
Alabama (3769)
Oregon (3687)
Louisiana (3293)

Perhaps one of these prospective employers will come knock on your door soon?

 

from original sinners who could not obey ten simple commandments as a moral, even for modern times?