Forum Post: Affiliated with no one
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 5, 2011, 9:39 p.m. EST by tedscrat
(-96)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If I set policy:
- Flat tax regardless of income bracket; burn the tax codes
- In order to vote - pay taxes and pass civics test
- Government shrinkage by 10% in ten years. 25% in twenty years
If we are looking for drastic change, then let us really shake up the system.
Good thing you don't set policy.
"Flat tax" is regressive, punishes the poor and rewards the rich.
"Pay taxes to vote": Maybe you should study up on civics. This violates the 24th Amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
"Shrink government". "Big government" is not the problem. The problem is control of the government by financial interests rather than citizens.
The bigger the gov, the more rampant the corruption. True in any organization. Thing with gov is, there is no one to hold them accountable except for an apathetic public.
Well said, nucleus.
Yes I agree on number 2. An amendment would have to be passed in order to facilitate the voting requirement
LOL 47% of people would be locked out of voting. Only people with jobs and paying taxes can vote? Sounds good to the 1%. You must be working for them.
That is a definite start, and the heart of my argument. If only 53% can vote because only 53% pay taxes, then so be it. And by the way, I am not a member of the 1% and I do not work for them.
You're ignorant. Look up what 53% really means before you post trash like that.
let's see... 53% of Americans pay federal taxes. Take a pill.
Actually, that number was a prediction that turned out to be wrong. However, so many people have fallen in love with it that accuracy is unlikely to win out over its continued use.
I hate this 53% nonsense. It's a divide and conquer technique based on a fraction of the facts. Dude above totally just claimed 47% of people would be locked out of voting because they pay no taxes.
Nothing could be further from the truth and it infuriates me to no end.
Yes, it is both untrue and divisive as heck. it fuels those looking for a reason to feel shortchanged and angry with something.
No, dear. 53% of Americans pay more into federal income taxes than they receive back. (and this figure applies only to income tax, none others... and there are countless others. Many of them federal...)
This means anyone with 2 children, earning less than... oh... say... $50,000, receives a refund at tax time. Making them part of the 47%.
These are the same tax loopholes GE uses to receive 1.3 billion dollar credits at tax time, too.
Don't like the rules, argue with the policy makers.
But don't sit here and spew ignorance in the name of... whatever the hell your spouting off about.
I will grant that most likely the 53% vs the 47% is an oversimplification. What independentmind is referring to is the tax codes. Whatever the percentages, I stick by my basic ideas mentioned above.
I would rather have more money in my pocket day to day than depend on that refund in April
I will be the first to admit that I have no knowledge of the numbers involved in the debate. But in the current atmosphere of class warfare and 1% vs 99%, I am willing to stand by my points.
I like the idea of the flat tax and all the stuff about voting and number three about the government. However, I think one year for 10% is a little unrealistic.
Nice, flat, and fair: 0%
Shrink!
Please go into detail
I agree, less government. the one flat rate tax I'm not so sure about... however we still need to allow business and education grow.
What do you mean by the growth of education?
what defines a country is not what the people think but what they do. yes thinking can change a country and does, and is good but action is what is seen. education is that action, if a country promotes hard work and good education they will grow. if they don't they will fail. if they rely on the government or another man for their pay they will fail.
Absolutely right, but government management of education has evidently not achieved that goal. A 10-25% decrease in government size would necessarily involve more localization of education funding.
i agree! I was actually homeschooled, its not perfect but I do think it is a good thing. one of the biggest problems I have seen with it is some parents using it as a control weapon over their child's life, which doesn't work (we are made to to be free). however I think the best would be all parents taking an active role on all levels of their child's education. homeschooling can provide this but there are lazy parents!
Unfortunate fact of life is 2 working parents. A school district in downtown Detroit would have different needs than a district in, say, the rural Midwest. No offense to daddy government but a nation of this size and diversity in demographics needs local solutions. But the devil is always in the details
yup! I agree!
It is good to agree and it is good to disagree. I hope more people believe in simplicity
I think I agree with you alot more than the guy promoting equal pay :)
Ha ha. I am still not convinced that he wasn't trying to kick the bear and see what happened. Perhaps the devil's advocate or trying to bring OWS ideas to its logical conclusion?
lol maybe so!
I could agree with you except : 10% in one year. 25% in three years.
Nice except the vaulted "supercommittee" can't agree on which hole shite comes out of. I am afraid nothing short of a dictator with storm troopers could accomplish that kind of goal.
Hmmm.......
Believe me. I have thought about it. But that would concede the failure of the American system and I am afraid I am not quite ready for that.
How much more will it take?
Many (if not most) of the people around here have already proclaimed the failure of the American system. Their answers amount to Marxism. Which amounts to a dictator and Stormtroopers.
This brings up an interesting notion. I wonder what Germany would have become if Hitler was not in charge. If you look at the transformation of Germany in the late 30s it would be interesting to see the end product. And no, I am not promoting any final solution or singling out of any group. But if it is the producers who are the future of this country, then what system would replace the United State's?