| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/21/2012 08:35:25 PM · #176 |
Flat sales tax. NO income tax. We tax only on what is purchased. We can double and triple tax if we want - tax on imports to the importer, tax on the product when sold to the customer. No PERSON is double taxed - only goods or services.
Definitely evens out the burden according to ability to pay, yes? And has the added bonus of getting bucks from illegally obtained funds - criminals buy things, too. |
|
|
|
08/21/2012 08:42:15 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Flat sales tax. NO income tax. We tax only on what is purchased. |
Isn't that referred to as the "Fair Tax"? I'd sign on to that, but for the fact that it wouldn't be long before they end up bringing back the personal income tax on top of a flat consumption tax. |
|
|
|
08/21/2012 10:16:07 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Definitely evens out the burden according to ability to pay, yes? |
No, no, no ... rich people do not spend anything close to the same proportion of their income as do the poor or moderate income. |
|
|
|
08/21/2012 11:08:32 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What do you (anyone) think of the idea of a mass movement to disconnect from any party affiliation and a pledge to give erroneous answers on political polls? If enough people were to do this (tens of millions maybe), what do you think it would do to the campaigns?
Basically, I believe that the people/electorate HAVE TO ACT to change anything about our system and we are all fairly polarized into just the corners that the power brokers want/need us in to keep control and power for themselves. I'm looking for ideas that would shake the system to it's core. (eta: I should qualify that - ideas that most people would be willing to participate in) |
I agree that both parties are bought and paid for. If you and I personally played "conservative" and "liberal" we could think outside of those boxes and compromise a solution... but then who would care about our solution?
I think the best plan is to vote for candidates outside of the two parties. The two-party system is not in the Constitution. It is merely a convention, and a convenient way for the wealthy to buy elections... back both horses.
But... I just can't bring myself to do it this year. The Republican rhetoric is just so poisonous and at least Obama says the right things sometimes. Sigh... this is very difficult for me. |
|
|
|
08/21/2012 11:22:22 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Melethia:
Definitely evens out the burden according to ability to pay, yes? |
No, no, no ... rich people do not spend anything close to the same proportion of their income as do the poor or moderate income. |
Gotta agree with Paul. Sales tax is also one of the most regressive taxes out there. One of the main reasons Oregon does not have one.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2012 11:27:46 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Gotta agree with Paul. Sales tax is also one of the most regressive taxes out there. One of the main reasons Oregon does not have one. |
Absolutely. Replace income tax with a national sales tax and the price of ALL goods will rise by the percentage of that tax. The low-income segment of the population, which can scarcely survive even now, and which pays no income tax (since it doesn't reach the taxable threshold) will get hammered.
And at the same time, what about all those OTHER withholdings that are NOT income tax? Social Security? FICA? All that? They're still gonna have to ding the paychecks, the bureaucracy isn't just gonna disappear... |
|
|
|
08/21/2012 11:45:04 PM · #182 |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 07:47:40 AM · #183 |
| i say we end all taxes and just donate what we feel the government needs, sort of like an allowance. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 11:15:37 AM · #184 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Absolutely. Replace income tax with a national sales tax and the price of ALL goods will rise by the percentage of that tax. The low-income segment of the population, which can scarcely survive even now, and which pays no income tax (since it doesn't reach the taxable threshold) will get hammered.
And at the same time, what about all those OTHER withholdings that are NOT income tax? Social Security? FICA? All that? They're still gonna have to ding the paychecks, the bureaucracy isn't just gonna disappear... |
I'd not tax ALL goods. It could be made fair and you could close the so called loopholes.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2012 11:48:35 AM · #185 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
I'd not tax ALL goods. It could be made fair and you could close the so called loopholes. |
Want to give us a rough outline? |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 11:54:46 AM · #186 |
my results:
//www.isidewith.com/results/55093957
94% Jill Stein
81% Obama
63% Gary Johnson
39% Ron Paul
I am 2% Mitt Romney. I wonder if I can fix that with a blood transfusion.
Message edited by author 2012-08-22 11:55:59. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 01:26:17 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by David Ey:
I'd not tax ALL goods. It could be made fair and you could close the so called loopholes. |
Want to give us a rough outline? |
No tax on food except 'exotic' items.
No tax on clothing priced under X $...tax sport team apparel
Variable tax on cars....some with no tax
Tax games, hunting and fishing eqpt., pleasure boats and other non essential items.
Basically, if you NEED it there likely is no tax. If you just WANT it there is likely a tax on it. If you use it in a business..no tax, but you need to be able to show you actually have a business and not just a hobby.
I think there is a fair solution but it won't ever happen
|
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:08:41 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Basically, if you NEED it there likely is no tax. If you just WANT it there is likely a tax on it. |
So, where do cell phones fall into place? Seems they have been deemed as "need" items nowadays.
//www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/
https://www.safelinkwireless.com/Safelink/
It's true!
//www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp
Is a cell phone actually a need based item, like food?! |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:09:26 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Basically, if you NEED it there likely is no tax. If you just WANT it there is likely a tax on it. If you use it in a business..no tax, but you need to be able to show you actually have a business and not just a hobby.
I think there is a fair solution but it won't ever happen |
Well, I hear ya and, believe me, I'm sympathetic to this approach, but... by the time you get to exempting from the sales tax all these "essential" items, just how much of a tax are you gonna have to lay on the REST of it to make up for all the lost tax income from the previous system? Plus, as you've essentially acknowledged, it's never gonna work/won't ever happen; can you imagine the pressure to classify certain foods as necessities and others as luxuries subject to tax? Beef, for example; nobody NEEDS it, it's environmentally disastrous, so TAX it? Or just tax the PRIME beef but leave the CHOICE alone? No tax on ground beef, tax on steak?
That sort of thing would lead an increasingly accelerated trend towards social engineering through taxation. Which we already have, of course, with sin taxes on cigarettes and booze and such, but...
Sigh... |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:13:20 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The two-party system is not in the Constitution. It is merely a convention, and a convenient way for the wealthy to buy elections... back both horses. |
Not only is it NOT in the constitution, it was specifically warned against during the founding of this country...
Originally posted by John Adams:
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. |
Originally posted by George Washington:
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. |
What if there was a movement to have the party designations removed from the ballots to incentivize people to think and learn about who they are voting for? The order of the candidates could be shuffled around and different on various batches of ballots so nobody gets an advantage.
With congressional approval rates at ~10%, frankly ANY solution is HIGHLY likely to be an improvement - even drawing names out of a hat to serve in Congress. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:16:02 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Is a cell phone actually a need based item, like food?! |
That program's been in place since the 1980's, and it predates widespread cell phone usage. It still covers landlines, but increasingly the emphasis is on cell phone service, which is cheaper to set up and maintain. The program's administered by the FCC.
Originally posted by FCC:
Background
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Congress recognize that telephone service provides a vital link to emergency services, government services and surrounding communities. To help promote telecommunications service nationwide, the FCC, as directed by Congress and with the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), administers the federal Universal Service Fund (USF).
Programs
The federal USF pays for four programs. They are:
Lifeline/Link Up. This program provides discounts on monthly service and initial telephone installation or activation fees for primary residences to income-eligible consumers. For additional information, see our consumer guide.
High-Cost. This program ensures that consumers in all regions of the nation have access to telecommunications services at rates that are affordable and reasonably comparable to those in urban areas.
Schools and Libraries. This program makes discounts available to eligible schools and libraries for eligible telecommunications services, Internet access and internal connections so that schools and libraries may have access to affordable telecommunications and information services. For additional information, see our consumer guide.
Rural Health Care. This program helps link health care providers located in rural areas to urban medical centers so that patients living in rural America will have access to the same advanced diagnostic and other medical services that are enjoyed in urban communities. For additional information, see our consumer guides at: www.fcc.gov/guides/universal-service-program-rural-health-care-providers and www.fcc.gov/guides/rural-health-care-pilot-program. |
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. You can read more about it here.
Message edited by author 2012-08-22 15:16:25. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:17:02 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What if there was a movement to have the party designations removed from the ballots to incentivize people to think and learn about who they are voting for? The order of the candidates could be shuffled around and different on various batches of ballots so nobody gets an advantage. |
I am totally on board for this. Great idea. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:33:38 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What if there was a movement to have the party designations removed from the ballots to incentivize people to think and learn about who they are voting for? The order of the candidates could be shuffled around and different on various batches of ballots so nobody gets an advantage. |
I am totally on board for this. Great idea. |
I like it. However, we also shouldn't HAVE to place a vote for every item on the ballot. Maybe there should be an option for "I decline to vote on this position/topic"... If I recall, my ballot didn't have that option blatantly outlined. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:39:30 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What if there was a movement to have the party designations removed from the ballots to incentivize people to think and learn about who they are voting for? The order of the candidates could be shuffled around and different on various batches of ballots so nobody gets an advantage. |
I like the idea, but then it's just a popularity contest by name instead of party. Given that we're well into the computer age, why not set up ballots like isidewith.com? Vote on the actual issues with ranked importance, and your vote goes to the person with the closest match. There would be details to work out, of course, but parties instantly become irrelevant, smear campaigns and misleading ads are rendered useless, extensive fundraising is no longer required, and Jill Stein (who?) becomes the next president. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:45:07 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. You can read more about it here. |
I understand it's beginnings. However personally I see a big difference between a cell phone and a home phone. I see a cell phone as non-essential.
However, my point was - if it's considered a need and is given out for free to some people - maybe it shouldn't get taxed. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:54:09 PM · #196 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What if there was a movement to have the party designations removed from the ballots to incentivize people to think and learn about who they are voting for? The order of the candidates could be shuffled around and different on various batches of ballots so nobody gets an advantage. |
I like the idea, but then it's just a popularity contest by name instead of party. |
Valid point, but refer to my previous comment that ANY change would be an improvement.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Given that we're well into the computer age, why not set up ballots like isidewith.com? Vote on the actual issues with ranked importance, and your vote goes to the person with the closest match. There would be details to work out, of course, but parties instantly become irrelevant, smear campaigns and misleading ads are rendered useless, extensive fundraising is no longer required, and Jill Stein (who?) becomes the next president. |
I REALLY like that type of idea, particularly the bolded parts. Given that we can't even implement computerized voting under the current system and that we had people contesting the election on the basis of "perceived voter intent" back in 2000, this is probably a pipe dream. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:55:57 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What if there was a movement to have the party designations removed from the ballots to incentivize people to think and learn about who they are voting for? The order of the candidates could be shuffled around and different on various batches of ballots so nobody gets an advantage. |
I am totally on board for this. Great idea. |
I like it. However, we also shouldn't HAVE to place a vote for every item on the ballot. Maybe there should be an option for "I decline to vote on this position/topic"... If I recall, my ballot didn't have that option blatantly outlined. |
I'm pretty sure you can leave an item blank. I do it when I don't know enough to make an informed decision. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 03:59:05 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I like the idea, but then it's just a popularity contest by name instead of party. Given that we're well into the computer age, why not set up ballots like isidewith.com? Vote on the actual issues with ranked importance, and your vote goes to the person with the closest match. There would be details to work out, of course, but parties instantly become irrelevant, smear campaigns and misleading ads are rendered useless, extensive fundraising is no longer required, and Jill Stein (who?) becomes the next president. |
Could you imagine the fallout if this ever took place? I'd personally finance a black, lesbian female and make sure her platform lines up with the popular side on every issue. |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 04:03:43 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I like the idea, but then it's just a popularity contest by name instead of party. Given that we're well into the computer age, why not set up ballots like isidewith.com? Vote on the actual issues with ranked importance, and your vote goes to the person with the closest match. There would be details to work out, of course, but parties instantly become irrelevant, smear campaigns and misleading ads are rendered useless, extensive fundraising is no longer required, and Jill Stein (who?) becomes the next president. |
Could you imagine the fallout if this ever took place? I'd personally finance a black, lesbian female and make sure her platform lines up with the popular side on every issue. |
Yeah, that's the obvious flaw - pandering would occur under that type of system. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/22/2012 04:07:28 PM · #200 |
| What makes you think a black lesbian female couldn't be a perfectly competent President? |
|
