With all the doings going on in Washington, I felt compelled to blog a few words about my feelings towards the whole situation. The sad and scary part of it all is that it shows just how little we control our government. There are drastic changes needed to the constitution that politicians aren't willing, for obvious reasons, to make. But here in lies the devil. It has become apparent lately just how corrupt Washington has become. No longer is it a bastion to service the needs of the masses but a closed club of the well connected and greedy and power hungry. We have as much control over the Government as we do over a pack of wild dogs. So, here are the things that I believe need changing.....
1. Election by popular vote, no electoral election
2. Election of judges, no more appointments
3. Make it illegal for lobbyist to give gifts or donations, of any sort, to lawmakers
4. Lawmakers can't work for lobbyist after leaving office, ever!
5. All monies collected during campaigns or fund raisers go into a pot, no more personal war chests.
6. Flat tax income tax... you make a dollar you pay a dime! Do away with the existing system. (federal and state)
What would you change if you could? City, State, Federal........Contrary to what they would have you believe, it is your government, and I'm not ready to sell.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Sorry, John, I can't say I want to see the federal government in the hands of the people anymore than I want to see it in the hands of the government . . . if the Bush years have taught us anything, it is that the general public are as much lazy, mindless sheep as the people who lead them . . . best to better your own immediate little world, spread the joy amongst your peers, and not acknowledge the government at all.
I would agree with items 3,4,5 and to some extent 6.
The flat tax is a good idea on the surface, but there are a couple groups of income that would lose their exempt status and it might actually be worse.
I think removing, or at least evenly distributing the money in campaigns would be a move in the right direction but that would be like asking a union to vote in favor of a pay cut in order to save the company - tough sell.
John.....You do make a compelling point.. the people did elect the existing people...so how can you trust their judgment? I think until you take the controling aspect out of the hands of the polititions and allow the citizenry to directly be the governing body, making the politions an information prevayor, not a governing body, only then will you have a true democratic process....(not in our lifetime..:~) )
da snoop.....Why not 1 & 2 ? I was a member of a union..VP of Local 284 IBEW. We were asked for just what you say, and we did just that, not that it made much difference.
A flat tax,without guilifacations, is about as fair as it gets. No loop holes, no special situations. If you make a dollar you pay a dime. (just a figureitive amount for discussion purposes only) Why do you feel that it wouldn't be fair for all?
What would you people add to the list?
Southview, not 1 and 2 for many reasons, certainly more than can be posted in a blog comment, but I basically agree with what John stated.
In order for the people to be able to govern themselves they would have to possess the ability of critical thinking, not to mention the multitude of topics we all would have to stay versed on.
I think decisions by populace vote tend to be knee-jerk reactions to the immediate situation and not so much with the long term in mind. Never mind the expense and time involved in getting the concensus of the entire country on every issue.
Disenfranchisment, corruption, and fraud are rampant in our system now. One can only imagine what the political landscape would be like when each voter must have the knowledge and ability to decide issues from health to science to energy to geo-political.
I don't think our problems are so much to do with having hired guns to do our bidding in Washington, they are more to do with what it cost to higher those guns which then limits not only those that can be considered for hire but also those who get to do the hiring.
As for flat tax, it would actually be a pay reduction, by whatever the tax percentage is, to those who are currently exempt.
That is my point exactly.....there should be no exemptions! Any erned income from any source domestic or forign, No religion, corporation, indivual, or any enenty is exempt. You make a dollar you pay a dime. As the system exists now the more you make the less percentage you actually pay. It would bring sanity to the tax system,, especually if those in the higher brackets had to pay their fair share.
So the single parent of three who is working two jobs and taking some night classes to try and get out of the rut should not be allowed any tax exemptions? If s/he makes $10,000 a year, you want a cut of that?
How about senior citizens on fixed income, no deductions for health care and medications?
How about the ambulance service, they provide coverage for Berkshire County and beyond on a shoe string budget, you want a cut of their receipts?
An advocate for the poor and downtrodden. The point you seem to be missing here is that there will be more money in the bucket to share with those that need it. Those that are not paying their fair share (the wealthy) will have to kick in their share making for more monies available for social programs for those that are in need. Remember here we are talking persentages. Any earned income is taxed, no matter where you fall in the system.
To address your examples:
1. $10,000 (earned income) at 30%= $3,000 (state & federal) $10,000 (earned income) at 10%= $100
2. As far as seniors (and you forgot the disabled) They are taxed. Medicare and medicade chew up any savings that they may realize through other means. But you must remember here that you have a base earned income from which you base the whole process on.
3. The free subsidised services provided (whats the term...augratis? is a tricky one. Religious organizations, is an example, are in essence a for profet unit. They should be taxed. Ambulance service...is a service that should be provided by the city and hence not an issue, no tax status because their funding comes from the city coffers, not just donations.
Southview a couple final points from my end to address your last post:
1)10% of $10,000 is $1000 but would be close to zero under the current plan. Why take money in taxes from people you are going to give right back to, extra paper work and staff - a losing proposition.
2)I'm not sure I follow you on this one, but I believe under your plan, medical deductions would be eliminated - net increase in taxes on this group.
3)If other services, such as religious or "gratis" as you put it are taxed, then only those that can turn a profit are going to survive and all you have done is move the have nots vs the haves burden from one group to another.
Now who is looking out from within their bubble?
da snoop.....sorry for the error, my computer can't do math very well! :~)
Medical is only a persentage of your gross vs expences. Usually not even worth the wasted ink to fill out the paperwork. But if your expences are that high you would recoup the loses through other services.
A public/private org only has to break even. These are usually not for profet businesses so any monies would be put back into operating expences and not considered as income, but if they take the monies and invest in say stocks or property as a for profet mechinism then tax um!
You seem to think that I am advocating taxing the poor. Not in my bubble. There are only two classes left in this country, those that have and the rest of us. You wouldn't even have to start paying taxes unless you have a base income above a certain level. So the poverty or low income people arn't even part of the descussion. Remember we are talking EARNED INCOME!
Ah, this is where I was hoping you were going to go with this. Your first statement was "Make a dollar pay a dime". There was no mention of having to be above a certain income level.
Now you set an arbitrary level one must attain before paying taxes. So who sets that level? What is it based on? Wouldn't this encourage a person to make only up to that level but not beyond? What about the person who only make $1 or $2 or over that level, are they then taxed on their entire income or only what is over the arbitrary level? If it is only the income over the level, would it even be worth the expense to collect that small amount of taxes?
What is earned income? Does that include a person who never works a day in their life, they live off of money they themselves never made? Are trust funds earned income? How about insurance settlements? Lottery winnings? Money borrowed against real assets?
Ha,Ha,Ha, da snoop you are so funny!
?
da snoop.....just to satisfy your hunger for clearifaction. Yes you have to have a base earned income from which to be liable for taxaction. It does not make any sence to give out a welfare check at one window, tax them at the other, and give it back to them at the third. Let's be real here!
Lets ,for the sake of argument, but the base earned income at $20,000. Sorry, tough luck, to bad ...if you make $20,001. You pay your tax on that dollar! But not to worry...their new wrinckle is to FEE you as well as TAX you. Hmmm..... can you deduct fees you paied? They are after all a HIDDEN TAX! Fees fall into the catigory of TAXACTION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! Isn't that against the law?
Southview "It does not make any sence to give out a welfare check at one window, tax them at the other, and give it back to them at the third." - that was my point.
On paper eliminating all deductions sounds good, but I'm not sure I am convinced of the idea. Do you have any data that shows what the net increase would be?
Tough sell all the way round. Those that stand to lose the most are the one's in power. So your asking them to not only reduce their spending power, but also that of many on the lower end of the scale as well. Who benefits - middle class? Shrinking voting population with little to no PAC's or lobbyist.
Post a Comment