Forum Post: Still affiliated with no one
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 8, 2011, 1:49 p.m. EST by tedscrat
(-96)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
- Flat tax across every income bracket
- 10% reduction in government in 5 years.
- 25% reduction in government in 15 years
- Restrict voting to tax payers and individuals who pass basic test on civics and government
These ideas are not in line with OWS at all.
You say that like it is a bad thing. I do not agree with a number of OWS's points. I do not believe they will succeed on a national scale and I believe they are in fact detrimental to economic progress. Not to deny that there are problems. I do not necessarily think the OWS is the answer
They are bad things. Why do you post here? This is the OWS forum.
[Removed]
If posted on any other website, I would be preaching to the converted. You guys need guidance, and I will be your guide to clarity.
LOL! You are clarifying what this movement is opposed to!
OWS is an open forum. Isn't it? Of all the ideas and statements that I make, if one or two seriously think about one or two items, then it is a start. And I do not want an OWS platform being made national policies. Maybe a couple of points, but that is it.
Do you agree that we should get money out of politics? Maybe we could all agree to that.
Flat Tax - No, unfair to the poor.
Reduce the size of government - No, unfair to the poor, throws people out of work, reduces social programs, education, environmental conservation,etc.
Disenfranchising Anyone - Immoral, unconstitutional, regressive
[Removed]
Abolishing the tax codes will take a lot of the money out of politics. There would be no tax credits and loopholes to throw around like so many loaves of bread to the circus. People with less money will unfortunately have to make hard decisions whether they have to pay a tax or not I do not know how many fricking trillions the federal budget is, but if it cannot survive or perform services on a reduced budget, then perhaps we have failed as a nation
That sounds like a very sad outcome.
It doesn't have to be that way. But I believe that we are at a crossroads. Rome lasted 700 years before it fell. Technology and communication are speeding up the lifespan. A nation cannot sustain itself with a minority of producers.
So you are proposing a form of poll tax, which is illegal in this country. I think you had better take a civics test yourself.
A law can be repealed, In its most basic form, I am not looking to disenfranchise anyone. I am trying to bring back a population with greater knowledge and a vested interest in voting. Minors cannot vote. What is the problem with requiring a person to pay tax in order to vote? We have no slaves, we have no populations we want to keep down. I would like to see everyone rise. In addition, it is a law to have auto insurance. It is a law to have a liscence to drive a car. They do not give them away for free.
You do realize that we have a segment of the population that pays no income tax correct? That no longer pays FICA tax? That is what is wrong with it. You'd be disallowing that segment of our population of representation.
So therefore it is equivalent to a poll tax.
A better idea would be to invest in education. Last year I had two kids in high school (today they are in a better program in my estimation), the civics course was practically nonexistent!
Of course, it would help greatly if our younger voters didn't already feel disenfranchised.
Sometimes what seems like a good idea doesn't look so good after reconsideration a few days later.
Restricting political participation is undesirable because it will allow the ones in charge to ignore segments of the population. We need them to be more responsible to the people, not less. I have seen that governments which had to be responsible to more people tended to respond to disasters better. Yes, I am willing to have some not-so-well-versed people join in the political process so that we can have a better overall balance. I subscribe to the "wisdom of the markets" or voters because I had regretted my votes later on but the mass of voters had more common sense than I did.
Closet libertarian?
To be truthful, I do not know enough about their platform to say. But what I have heard about it appeals to me.
Always wanted to live in the wild west, eh?
Mr. P would take us back even further.
I do not suppose the Wild West would spend 6 months sitting in a committee figuring out how to provide for the winter. The wild west was wild because everything had to be built from scratch. Come on, you have to be smarter than that
I am.
LibTs are not.
Implication being that the Wild West is what would happen with a government shrinkage. Not even remotely accurate. I think if the 10% reduction were compulsory, I believe (or rather, hope) that there would be enough brain matter out there to make it happen
Not in the closet anymore, eh?
Another Tea Party member?
Why thank you. I am not entirely sure that accurately describes my beliefs. I guess it is a mix of different ideas, because the good thing about a multiparty system is that it brings a variety of ideas to the table.
Those ARE the Tea Party beliefs. :/
Yes, they are. However, I do not necessarily share the isolationist view of the Tea Party. The goal of a platform as mentioned I hope would be a re-introduction to self reliance of the individual. However, this is set in a world that for better or worse is coming together as one community. Until the world, as a community, is able to work as one unit (which is very much in doubt), I want the United States to be able to exert its muscle where it is needed and use the carrot where it will work.
Flat taxes are harmful to the those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Smaller government (although not defined here) means less regulation and zero social services. Not to mention intentionally slowing the judicial system down to where rights are lost.
This is not about community. There is nothing about community in your above listed beliefs.
Flat taxes are not harmful. If we are talking about economic equality, a flat tax is the best way to promote that. I am not in the top 1 %; I am not even in the top 10%. Why tax a richer person more because they have more money. I did the math earlier on this site. If there are 350,000 millionaires and you tax 10 or 15% flat on each million, do the math. You add the taxes on the other wage earners and you are looking at a very substancial amount in the federal coffers. There would also be a consumer tax in addition. If a person is making less money, unfortunately, they will have to live within their means. Smaller government does not equate to no social services. It does not equate to slowing the judicial system. How about more efficient? How about shifting federal responsibilities down to the states?
If a municipality needs money for a specific project, they can always bring it up for vote on the ballot.
You really need to study economics and politics. Economists the world over have shown definitively how flat taxes hurt the poor. I personally have explained too many times to too many people who don't get it to bother yet one more time.
Nor would a flat tax do one singe thing to eliminate or separate money from politics. Corporations influence legislation not merely for the sake of low taxes, but to increase profits. This profit-making is what leads to income inequity and concentration of corrupt power. The economic collapse we are living through now was not the result of a progressive tax code, but by profit at all cost, including massive fraud, by Wall Street and banks, enabled by deregulation by government. Oil companies like BP don't care about taxes so much as they care about being able to drill for oil in ecologically sensitive areas, like the Gulf of Mexico. They had enough influence to capture the regulatory bodies that were supposed to act as watchdogs for the public. You saw what happened.
We need to spend MORE money for regulators, not less. Shrinking the government would leave it toothless. in times of great unemployement, the government must engage in GREATER deficit spending to create jobs and grease the economy. It must also pay from things like unemployment insurance so people don't starve, and food stamps for the same reason. It must also spend more to grease the wheels of the economy and open the doors of credit. One the economy is back on track, increased revenue from people working and paying income taxes, combined with fewer payouts for needed social services helps pay down the debt, The wealthy paying more also helps pay that debt down, and they are still left with great wealth.
Less federal spending wold not mean more freedom for local communities, but higher local taxes. They still have to pay for services like garbage collection, education, road maintenance, infrastructure. Without federal help, poor communities would never be able to keep up, while wealthier towns would have little problem. Inequality would increase. In fact, it would soar.
You know, I just changed my mind: let's go over the flat tax. Let's say, only to make it clear, that the tax rate would be 90%. (Yeah, I know, but it shows the issue in bold relief.) If a family of four makes, say 20 thousand per year, they would have to pay 18 thousand of that, leaving them with only 2000 on which to survive for the year. Now how about someone who earns a millions a year. They would still have 100,000 left. And each and every year the income gap would only grow larger.So would the influence on political power.
Even if we roll back the tax rate to something more reasonable, that gap continues to widen, and the burden on the poor continues to be born disproportionately. And with the increase of wealth disparity comes more concentration of political power by those at the top.
Please, learn economics. It's a good thing to know.
I am not looking for zero government. I am looking for sleeker, more effective government. The regulations were in place regarding BP, but MMS failed. Piling on more regulation is not the answer. Most of the debate is in reference to past experiences and current learning. What will most likely be needed is a paradigm shift in thinking; something new. To have a case in point, the goal in oil drilling is a zero accident rate. Considering the thousands of wells in the Gulf alone and the complexity of deep water drilling, accidents will unfortunately happen. More regulatory agencies and bigger government will not prevent another accident. The only way to prevent accidents here is to not drill at all. If BP is forced to pay heaps of money for repair and cleanup (and a lot of the cleanup was done by mother nature), that should be enough (in a perfect world).
I never said a flat tax would take all money out of campaigning and politics, it would take a sizeable portion out of it. After this step, the results would be evaluated and the next step would be made. One could have a safety net of thousands of yarn nets or a single net of the most durable polymer available. Which would be better? Take the same philosophy and apply it to government. What good are the thousands of FEMA trailers in the Katrina aftermath if they cannot be properly distributed? Why give a food stamp allotment of, say, $300 when $300 would not be enough to buy the needed food.
Methods to streamline the cost would go a long way to providing for everyone. Like I said, a reduction in government funding is not synonymous with no government services and no safety net. It is better use of the money available. Following the idea of a decrease in cost of living, a 10% flat tax on 20,000 should not be as painful as it would be in this environment.. Throwing more money at a problem will not fix it. What the hell does Washington DC know about farming issues in Iowa? Instead of paying people to figure it out in Washington, give the said amount of money to the people in the know in Iowa. Smaller government, decentralized, simplified. Greather personal freedom and responsibility. That is basically all I am saying
I know what you're saying. Or rather, come to think if it, I really don't. You provide no details, How would you streamline government? What would you cut? How would you guarantee that regulators do their jobs? How would you make sure that poor communities can get the same government services as wealthy ones? How would a flat tax stop the widening of economic inequality? (It wouldn't. It would only exacerbate it.)
A flat tax would have no effect on campaign finance. That finance is determined by how much money one can contribute, not the difference of tax rates you pay. The wealthy protect their interests by contributing lots of money to candidates they believe will be friendly to them. They have more money, not because of taxes, but overall wealth. The poor can't hope to compete with that. They also provide wonderful, unique investment opportunities to their representatives, and promise well paying opportunities to them after they leave office. Taxes have nothing to do with any of it.
Most people at the bottom already pay the equivalent of a flat tax. Most localities and states have sales taxes, and they impact the poor much more than they impact the wealthy. The poor are trying to pay for rent, food, clothing. The working poor also pay payroll taxes. These are things the wealthy are hardly effected by. But damn if it isn't hard on everyone else. A steeply graduated progressive tax, in which the poor pay less (and therefore spend more, fueling the economy, creating more jobs, and paving the way for upward income mobility) is fair. The wealthy don't add to the economy as proportionally as the poor do. They save their excess funds, earning interest on it. Taxing them at the same rate as the poor drags the entire economy.
I agree that the handling of the Katrina tragedy was a disaster. But that has to do with ineptitude, not a bad tax system of built-in inefficiency. Local needs were ignored by the FEMA director, who was granted broad discretion about what to do, and who had zero experience in the job as was a political crony of the last president. Inefficiency was the least of the problems (Though it certainly was one of them.) And nothing prevented the localities or the state from doing more. No one in the federal government declared "you can't help you citizens." The local and state governments did not help more because they didn't have the money. So federal dollars were necessary.
Throwing money at the problem, I agree, is not the ONLY solution to the problem, but at times it is a necessary part of the solution. Schools, for example, with little money cannot afford to pay enough teachers, have libraries, well-supplied science labs. Money won;t solve management problems, but it pays for infrastructure, classrooms and teachers.
I am not opposed to greater efficiency, But arbitrary numbers like a 10% cut applied with a butcher knife instead of scalpel, can do enormous damage.
To provide details about a particular program to cut implies that I have a knowledge which I don't. I wish I had more knowledge of these things. With that said, I am an observer who sees duplicity in departments and services. A charity will show what percentage of every dollar donated goes straight to the service offered. I believe the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, can't compete. Deficit spending is like filling a glass with a crack in it.
A five year window is time for an agency to decide which areas need to be streamlined and made more efficient. Government has to be run more like a business. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am interpreting your writings here as indicative as a broad need for government in every facet of life. I am not saying this as a curse. It is a belief that you share with millions. The heart is there, but I am afraid the situation calls for a different approach.
Great Britain and France, among other European nations, felt the need to turn their nations into welfare states for a number of reasons after WWII. Their ideas were noble, and still are, but they cannot ignore the economic reality of today. And they are a fraction of our size and population. One of the huge advantages of America, besides its individualism, is a knowledge and solidarity at the local level. Why look to Washington for relief when appropriate supplies and services and much better know-how are much closer? A 15 trillion dollar debt does not leave many options for further spending. Not without better guarantee of the return. These changes involve drastic measures, like ripping off the bandaid with one pull. A flat tax would be no less drastic. A progressive tax has its merits. Unfortunately, once you start with tax brackets, even ones like you describe, I believe that opens the door for lobbying and bargaining for a better percentage. Do not even have that as an option. Keep it simple on a federal level. A local municipality will handle specific tax needs as it arises on their terms, through a public ballot
Gosh, where to begin.
Without knowing the specifics of a particular program's needs, it is impossible to to determine where, or even if, cuts should be made. No doubt there is room for cuts in many departments, but some departments actually need increases. Simply saying that cuts of x% need to be made doesn't address the issue, and the results could be draconian. I don't know for sure they will, but neither do you know they won't. And I am unwilling to play with people's lives like that.
I also think you have a misconception, partly, of what deficits are. They are like a mortgage. That doesn't mean pouring money into a cracked glass, it only means that you still owe money on a debt. Businesses take out business loans all the time. people take out car loans all the time. A person can be in debt their entire life, and still be sound financially.
There is not simply a need for government in most aspects of life, there already are. Virtually everything we take for granted has been either created by or protected by government. If you are interested in a little thought exercise that clarifies this, a professor of political science at Mt. Holyoke college wrote about it brilliantly. I think you'll really enjoy it. Here is the link:
http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1
I have heard that government needs to be run like a business. I don't know what that means. Every business I have worked for exploits people, and is unbelievably top heavy. Certain businesses have just destoyed our economy through their reckless stupidity and greed. Personally I think government has to be better than that. If you mean that government must be fiscally responsible, I would be more understanding. (However, if you are really interested in efficiency, there is far less waste and overhead in Medicare than there is in ant private insurance business in the country. And the VA is even more so. Surprising, isn't it?) But then we may disagree about what programs or responsible and what aren't. As of now, even discounting possible difference of what each of might value, we simply don't know. Neither of us has the information. (There are some that I'm sure we could both agree upon, like military spending, but others we either won't agree about of have scant knowledge with which to make a determination)
Great Britain and France are in NO trouble beciuase of their social safety net. That is a disortion that has been floated specificall by the republican party to cynically promote their ideologically driven agenda. It has bo basis whatsoever in reality. Paul Krugman of the NY Times has written extensively on the reasons behind the European crisis, (in part caused by our banks, by the way), that is simply too voluminous to go over here. You might want to check him out. (Note: The Times has a 5 article limit per month for free. Beyond that, you need to pay. I have a workaround however, so if you're interested, just PM me. Don't want to share it publicly.)
The 15 Trillion dollar debt, though huge, is not really horrible compared to the size of out economy. Yes, it must be brought down in the long term. But the way to do that is not by cutting spending and services now, which would actually increase the debt by putting ore people out of work and slowing business investment generally, but investing much more in job creation. It also means increasing revenue, and since the rich have actually profited even more form the crisis than they did before it, raising their taxes in only fair rather than raising it for the poor by imposing a flat tax.
Once again, I don't have any objection to localities determining many of their needs. But funding those needs will always be inequitable if left to localities alone. let's look a t public education as one example. Schools are funded largely by local property taxes. Each community votes on how much they will spend. A wealthy town can always outspend a poor one. In fact they always do. And they do so while taxing themselves at LOWER rates than the poor. So you have unequal education between classes, (and that usually translate to races) while the poor are actually paying more of their money - as a percent of their income - to get less. I don;t know about you, but that smells undemocratic to me, and builds in de facto institutional racism. In my view, that's un-American. But the state and federal governments can (though they seldom do) redistribute other tax dollars to create a balance. This dynamic holds true for all local services.
I agree that we need drastic measures. But it is not taking a bandaid off. The social fabric, our civic life, is so deeply wounded, cutting back would be taking a tourniquet off an open artery. What we need now is massive investment to turn the economy around, When that gets humming, and the taxes start flowing, we can have this discussion again. Right now, though it is premature.
You seem extremely knowlegable. You seem to read and study a lot to learn about a problem. I admire that. Luckily for everyone I do not have an interest in running for office. I can barely run my life. I will be honest with you, I got my ideas about Britain and France from a compilation of the Daily Mail and Time. I am always looking to learn and I hope the people running the show have just as much interest in gaining knowledge. I have seen integration at work in the 1980s at my school work to disastrous consequences. I have seen various attempts to fix the problems from throwing money by the bucketload to the FCAT (I live in Florida). I am not necessarily dependent on government. I am dependent on a person out there or people out there who are smarter than me who can come up with a new way of handling our nation's problems. I have very little understanding of international economics, but I see the consequences of our debt. We need to reign in our spending, and this is where a good business model would perhaps come into play. The most bang for the buck.
I have learned more here then when I started banging away at this keyboard. Best of luck in your life and keep up the fight
Tedscrat: I don't agree at all. The humility you have just shown along with your open willingness (and ability) to learn more about an issue would make you a far better representative than almost anyone now holding office. on any level.
Best of luck to you as well.
Same to you. Just curious, what do you think of Christie?
Funny you should ask: I now live in New Jersey. What I think of Christie probably can;t be repeated in a public forum.
His campaign consisted entirely of lies, distortions, and dog-whistle code for racism. He has given hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest corporations in the state while cutting back benefits for teachers and municipal workers. His policies have begun to bankrupt towns, and hobbled the budget making process for the foreseeable future, possibly decades.
He was was in favor of a major infrastructure project absolutely needed by the state for its future economy, until he realized that his reputation as a conservative wouldn't be as strong if he let it go through. For purely political reasons he vetoed the project while trying to steal about 3 billion dollars the federal government had granted the state to built it. His need to support his hard right political reputation caused him to abandon his own principles, and torpedo a project that would have created thousands of jobs in the short term, and expanded the economy in the long term.
He is a typical anti-union and anti-worker, pro 1%, megalomaniacal right winger.
One guess what I think about him. A word only four letters long would probably be right.
PS: Just wanted to add, as per our previous conversation, I just found an article about the debt, and how the problem about it is a myth. It's actually on the site I o\pointed to before, but it is a new post that I hadn't seen before. It is one of the clearest articles I've read about it, and is in line with what just about every economist says, but it's written in a very easy to follow way. Anyway, here it is if you're interested:
http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=30&p=1
[Removed]
Never fall into the trap of running the government "like a business". Government deals with people's lives and livelihoods but businesses by and large can usually fail without major consequences to vast number of people (except those too-big-to-fail financial corporations). We should hold government to a much higher standard and promise not to wield the budgetary meat cleaver blindly until we have taken a really good look. I suspect that we can cut a reasonably significant amount out of the budget - there are many countries which spend much less than we do on healthcare for example and have better outcomes - although that will run roughshod over the no-socialism ideological blockage. Obamacare is congenitally defective because it does not include the efficient delivery of healthcare through the public option such as through Medicare for all. Did you wonder why the health insurance companies become supportive of Obamacare later on in its very labored delivery? Yes, they figured out that they would make even more money with Obamacare's rounding up the healthiest people who do not carry health insurance.
The national debt is huge but there are more important things that we need to attend to for now. How can we provide people with income (having many people collecting extended unemployment insurance and taxing the others to pay for it is unsustainable in the long term)? What are we going to do to mitigate the effects of very-long-term unemployment such as people falling off the job market altogether? How can we return them to work or provide them with an income? How should we reform our educational system so that we are better positioned for the future economic opportunities? How can we stimulate new business formations to perk up the economy? We must keep an eye on the national debt but we should not obsess over it. Genuine investments WILL add to the national debt but will return much more.
close :)
but reduction of Government shouldn't take so long, FIRE the bastards.
and if I ever make earn a million or more? the Government can have HALF. no problem..
but Taxation without representation? No, I will want to be represented yes yes. of course that would make me a special interest group wouldn't it? people would protest me :(
and Add economics to the test.
that should keep liberals at home with their sewing kits instead of spending our tax dollars
How do you feel about campaign finance reform and lobbying reform, that is minimizing the influence that money has in our choice of candidates and their subsequent decisions?
The creation of a tax loophole or tax exemption is a tool used by many lobbyists. The goal of lobbying reform is noble, but I would like to see it done from a different approach. A flat tax with no tax exemptions whatsoever I believe would put a number of lobbyist and influence peddlers out of business. Once we see the results of this first round, then a decision could be made on what to do next
I find this and all the forums a bit aloof these days...
I would like to try to spin the issues a bit for you...currently in the world we attack issues that arise as they arise. Missing the point that these issues have originated long before any current situation because we (the people, majority anyway) have not been doing our jobs for millineia(s) now. As we see the issue as something to be fixed we are continually being through into this imperial/patriarchal cycle or system.
In short, we have a long way to go and even the majority of activism may be headed in the wrong direction...
The closest thing I know happening politically that I can endorse is Bolivia Set to Pass Historic 'Law of Mother Earth' Which Will Grant Nature Equal Rights to Humans www.pvpulse.com
where the intension is set and seemingly in a new type of direction where instead of taking the big man down we bagin to promote the world up, if that makes sense.
and I quote "The law redefines natural resources as blessings and confers the same rights to nature as to human beings, including: the right to life and to exist; the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration; the right to pure water and clean air; the right to balance; the right not to be polluted; and the right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered. Perhaps the most controversial point is the right "to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities"
Everyone pays taxes. Even tourists.
Also: flat tax when we have flat income.
I agree with every point but the first. Taxes need to be progressive or else the income gap will only widen.
If the income level at the lower end is a sustainable, liveable income, then it would make the notion of an income gap irrelevant. A higher income would be a reward; an incentive to aim higher and improve yourself.
That's true, but more often than not the income level is not very sustainable. I understand where you're coming from though.
The goal would be to make the lower income sustainable. Case in point. I am a pharmacist. A patient comes into the store with a prescription for crestor to lower cholesterol. I have the power to make the suggestion and the phone call to change the med to zocor which has a generic and costs perhaps a tenth of the cost. Even if they are on insurance, if I can change a med from a high co-pay to a low co-pay, it saves the insurance company and the patient money. The idea is that cutting the cost of living can start from the bottom up.
Well wouldn't it make more sense to apply a progressive tax aimed at the wealthy rather than a flat tax?
A progressive tax leaves room for maneuvering and still penalizes the rich. In my opinion, a better option is decrease in costs
An elected official can have a better relationship with an educationed populace, plus they can no longer spoonfeed us crapola and call it reason
Actually sounds incredibly reasonable. Where have you been these past several months?
If I could change the world.......NOT
Actually, it comes from the mind of a sociopolitcoeconomical embicile. Instead of trying to slog through all of the theories and pseudoscientific jargon, I just want to keep it simple.
Simple achieved. What would the plan be to implement?
I have been thinking about that. I think that the government shrinkage will synonymous with a troop pullout in Iraq. The national government cannot scale back without the local government picking up the slack. Therefore, it will be a combination of streamlining federal programs and more local empowerment
Maybe for the 10% shrinkage. But what about the 25% in 15 years? And how would you get people to agree with the flat tax and the restricted voting?
I do not think we have much more time.
To come up with 10% is going to involve more that finding change in the couch. A 10% shrinkage in 5 years will necessarily require a streamlining of programs and a better model of performing. If government needs help, they could ask any business out there. The models would then be in place for the further shrinkage.
Ok fair point but what about your other two points?
One cannot drive on the highways without passing an exam on basic knowlege. Educated voters are better voters, especially if everyone has a vested interest in the outcome. A person not paying taxes has no vested interest in a vote nor should they; they should have no say in spending other people's money. If there are 500,000 millionaires and they each had only 1 million, how much annual tax revenue would be acquired with a 10 or 15% rate? Not to mention every other income earner. I should also mention that the tax codes would be thrown in the bonfire.
Like you said. Flat tax.
[Removed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/