You guys are going to think I am nuts!!!

[rhino 0]

I am actually considering running for congress in Michigan.

2 things I can think of that I would do right off the bat. Give both parents 50-50 custody right off the bat, hello, get the fuck out of my courtroom unless you have iron clad evidence.

And second I would do away with income tax all together. I think the economy would be 10 times stronger if you and I actually took home what we make. We would spend more driving more business..

grrrrrrrrrrrr......................... Anyone want to campaign with me?

Lat's get some!!!!!!!!!!

Rhino

[quatorze 1]

Quote

I am actually considering running for congress in Michigan.

2 things I can think of that I would do right off the bat. Give both parents 50-50 custody right off the bat, hello, get the fuck out of my courtroom unless you have iron clad evidence.

And second I would do away with income tax all together. I think the economy would be 10 times stronger if you and I actually took home what we make. We would spend more driving more business..

grrrrrrrrrrrr......................... Anyone want to campaign with me?

Lat's get some!!!!!!!!!!

Rhino

So you are going to run for public office in Bitch-again... er I mean Michigan?

I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle

[rhino 0]

Let's say I am in the gathering of information stage and seriously considering it.

[jfields 0]

Rhino,

How would you manage to balance the state budget without income tax, if they currently have it?

This next question is sincere, and not a personal slam:

Do you really think you have the interpersonal and persuasive skills required to sway enough voters?

I would never run for any major office, for many reasons, but if you choose to, I wish you luck.

[rhino 0]

I would have to see what the state expenditures are first? Then I would have to do an analysis of how much more spending the consumers would do actually taking home what they make..

Just think, your salary is 70,000 and you TAKE HOME 70,000.

I also think Social Security should be opt in not mandatory. If I want to collect then I will contribute. The whole system is a rip off. Their is no incentive to build business because of taxes.

Put a 10% flat tax on everything.

Currently we are taxed on our pay then taxed again when we spend? That is insane!


Rhino

[bbarnhouse 0]

Quote

You guys are going to think I'm nuts

In a word........yes.

[rhino 0]

Hit me with it.. I need some real issues to think about..

[happythoughts 0]

Are you going to do anything about that weather?

[rhino 0]

I think if we get the cold hearted x-wives out of Michigan it should warm up

[annaandbob 0]

so what are you going to do about our roads, they must be the worst in the country.

[jfields 0]

I think your chances of getting those federal laws changed are basically nil. It won't happen.

There is plenty of incentive to build business. Our highest tax bracket is nowhere near much of Europe. Getting rich isn't easy. If that is someone's goal, then they ought to do the extra work to overcome the tax hurdles to go from "comfortable" or "working class" to "rich".

I doubt that consumer spending and sales taxation would go up enough to cover reductions in income tax. If they don't, what services are you going to start cutting? If you start cutting services, how are you going to explain that to your constituents that depend on them?

I agree that our tax code is overly complex, but it does fundamentally work. We all foot the bill for the operation of the government. That includes the roads, schools, military, and everything else. A flat tax sufficient to provide the same needs would make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Is that what you want to do?

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Anyone want to campaign with me?

Sure, but you gotta run as a Libertarian.

Totally agree on the income tax. Get rid of the bureaucracy. National sales tax with exemptions for necessary living items for the poor.

Texas does just fine with a sales tax. It does work.

50/50 custody is reasonable, so long as there aren't any abuse/neglect issues. I'd also get rid of alimony. Community property. Split it 50/50 and say sayanara.

Ya know. Come to think of it I like the way Texas does things.

Maybe we should just secede again.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[jfields 0]

Quote

Texas does just fine with a sales tax. It does work.

From his numbers, he was talking about eliminating federal income tax as well. That is a huge gap to make up by boosts in sales tax. I agree with simplification, but it must be in a workable manner that isn't repressive to low-income families.

[PhillyKev 0]

Yeah, lets only tax the money that people spend. That way all the disposable extra income of the rich will sit in investments untaxed and unused. And every dime of the poor and lower middle class is taxed since they have to spend all of it to survive. After all, why should the rich have less in their bank account when they die just because some people are starving to death?

[Zennie 0]

Quote

From his numbers, he was talking about eliminating federal income tax as well.

I would as well.

I pay federal income tax on top of the Texas state sales tax. So just eliminate the income tax and replace it with a federal sales tax. Yeah you pay more sales tax, but you don't have federal tax coming out of your paycheck either.

Simplifies things (which reduces govt expenses and expenses hiring an accountant). No tax shelters. No weird deductions schemes. Just a simple consumption tax.

The wealthy will naturally pay more because they'll be buying expensive stuff. The poor will pay less because they're buying less expensive stuff. It all evens out. And the economy would benefit because people will have more disposable income to purchase things.

As far as the poor goes, like I said, you can exempt necessary living items like food & clothes if you don't meet a certain income threshold. Give 'em a card that they hand to the cashier which eliminates the tax on those items. It's very feasible.

The only thing about the Libertarian party that I don't like is that their policies tend to overy benefit big corporations. My form of Libertarianism isn't limited to government. It applies to big anything which has centralized control of something.

So I would also strengthen antitrust enforcement as well.

And market-based environmentalism is a farce. The sad fact is it is much, much more economical, from a business perspective, to pollute. So I'd also strengthen EPAs enforcement as well.

We don't need more laws in either of these areas, we've got plenty (take a look at the size of the entire CFR sometime), we just need to enforce the existing ones.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[kinney29 0]

An 14 percent across the board income tax with no excemptions and a one percent fedral sales tax would be more than enough to sustain us, especially if the size of government was reduced.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

That way all the disposable extra income of the rich will sit in investments untaxed and unused.

If it's unused they really aren't rich. Dei=finitely not living high on the hog.

If I choose to save that's my prerogative.

Tax it when it's used.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Sarge, I think you should run....
Who knows where it might end..
Governor for Michigan, senator, cultural ambassador to Iraq, president, mebbe even a seat on the united nations.....I'll bet they laughed at George Washington when he ran........

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Thanatos340 1]

A flat Tax would shift the Tax burden in this country to the lower class significantly.

Under the current structure, The lower income earners receive most of their income tax paid in back at the end of the year in a refund. Single Mothers even get back more than they paid in thanks to the Earned Income Credit (Yes, there are abuses of this but it still does a lot good for single moms trying to get out and work for a living.) This is also the only form of "Savings account" for most of them.
Also you would be taking away incentive for charitable contributions.
You take away the incentive to buy a home. The fact that Interest is Tax deductible on a Mortgage is what makes home ownership possible for many low to mid income families. Would the flat Tax apply to home purchases? if so you priced homes way outside of most low to mid income families.
Now add 6 to 10 % State Tax on top of the 14% federal Flat Tax and you just created the largest inflation in history. Again you are only hurting the lowest income people by increasing the cost of living by atleast 20% (No they are not making more money because they get most of their money back at the end of year anyway.)
I completely agree that our current system sucks, but a flat tax is not the answer but it sure sounds good until you look at the details.

Thanatos340
"Fast Cars, Easy Women, And Good Beer!! Life is too short for anything less!!"

[happythoughts 0]

Instead of marriage licenses, how about we issue "learners permits" for the first year?

[Zennie 0]

I'm not advocating a flat tax. I'm advocating a consumption tax.

As far as the refund goes, it's already built in. There is no federal tax witheld from a paycheck.

As far as charitable contributions go, that's a very good point. You could work in some sort of credit/refund mechanism to maintain the incentive.

I disagree on the incentive to buy a home. Again, the tax deduction is built in because there is no tax witholding. Nothing was taken. There's nothing to refund. You have more disposable income to pay a mortgage.

Most poor and middle class folks don't buy a home outright anyway. They receive federal assistance. That would remain intact. The very poor would still have federally funded housing available to them.

As far as inflation/cost of living goes. On the surface that would seem to be the case. But the dynamic has changed. Like I said, you can exempt necessary living expenses for the poor. So the cost of living for them is not increased.

For the middle & upper classes, the cost of living would remain roughly the same, possibly less, because again, you have more disposable income to buy things. Buying things creates more business, more business (generally) means more jobs. More jobs means less unemployment. Less unemployment means more people contributing to the economy. A thriving economy generally means lower prices. Etc. Etc.

And another thing to consider is that by simplifying the tax structure you also reduce business' operating expenses. Operating expenses are a big reason for layoffs. Reduce that and you reduce the possibility of layoffs. Note I said reduce, not eliminate... you'll always have some greedy execs who will take the money with them. But they're gonna get taxed when they spend that money.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"you'll always have some greedy execs who will take the money with them"

Still bitter Zen?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Still bitter Zen?

Naaahhhh.

Whatever gave you that idea?

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Call it a hunch....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[jfields 0]

Quote

For the middle & upper classes, the cost of living would remain roughly the same, possibly less, because again, you have more disposable income to buy things. Buying things creates more business, more business (generally) means more jobs....

Another factor that throws this scenario out of alignment is the disproportionate balance of trade. If people brought home more money, they may spend it and create tons of new jobs... in China, Korea, India, etc. We are a huge importer of material goods, especially inexpensive consumer products. While the government would collect your hypothetical sales tax on the items, I don't think the trickle-down effects would be as beneficial to our economy as you anticipate.

In general, I think we are all in agreement on making taxation simpler and more efficient. But we differ on our predictions of what different methods of taxation would do. I don't think there is any magic formula that will turn around the economy, or help on section of the population without harming another. Admittedly, some people (the rich) could survive a change in the system, but I'm equally sure they would try to find ways to subvert it.

I don't think any of these changes can lower the average tax Americans pay without lowering the services they receive. If anything, I would be much happier if the tax structure were kept the same for awhile, and the effort put into streamlining government. Having things run more efficiently and at a lower cost to taxpayers is the only way I see for reducing taxes. Then again, we could always just work on paying our UN dues or the national debt....