Jason Moran
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Forget What You Know About Taxes
This is the last entry from the What Would You Do As President? series. Up this time around is:
Lincoln started taxing to pay for the Civil War, but it was repealed after a few years. Income tax started up again in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the next year. It came back for good in 1913 with the 16th amendment. Even though the Constitution prohibited direct taxes to individuals, the powers that be decided to make it possible.
Regardless, the key point is not the constitutionality of taxes; the point is that income taxes have only really been around for less than 100 years. If we survived without taxes before, what makes today so much different other than us being satisfied with our present condition? I'd like to argue that everybody could be better off with less, or even no taxes (gasp!).
Maybe it has something to do with our money not being on a standard (like the gold standard). I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I do know that when there is a gold standard the government can’t just print money to fund its spending, so it keeps government spending in check. Plus, it helps keep inflation under control so your money doesn’t become practically worthless in a few years.
So, what is my advice? To completely dump the entire Internal Revenue Service and forget about taxes? Not quite.
Let’s replace personal income tax with a consumption tax.
So, the taxes you pay when you buy stuff increases, but that is what replaces the income tax. In other words, if you buy less stuff you will pay less taxes. Businesses still get taxed separately, but their write-offs would obviously be better considering the inherit tax that goes with all of the products and services supporting their business.
Maybe that’s too crazy, so how about a very low flat tax plus consumption tax.
How about a 5% flat tax on all money earned (and we’ll still throw in a few tax incentives like dependents, mortgage tax adjustments, etc). Since people with a few more bucks will be buying the yachts and the luxury items, the taxes they will be paying will go up according to all of the stuff they spend their money on. I don’t know if these concepts are feasible, so maybe the better place to start is to start cutting out government programs and services since the government just costs way too much money. If we cut out enough, then the taxes we pay will be reduced.
- Revise the tax code to bring fairness and relief to the working/middle classes.
Lincoln started taxing to pay for the Civil War, but it was repealed after a few years. Income tax started up again in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the next year. It came back for good in 1913 with the 16th amendment. Even though the Constitution prohibited direct taxes to individuals, the powers that be decided to make it possible.
Regardless, the key point is not the constitutionality of taxes; the point is that income taxes have only really been around for less than 100 years. If we survived without taxes before, what makes today so much different other than us being satisfied with our present condition? I'd like to argue that everybody could be better off with less, or even no taxes (gasp!).
Maybe it has something to do with our money not being on a standard (like the gold standard). I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I do know that when there is a gold standard the government can’t just print money to fund its spending, so it keeps government spending in check. Plus, it helps keep inflation under control so your money doesn’t become practically worthless in a few years.
So, what is my advice? To completely dump the entire Internal Revenue Service and forget about taxes? Not quite.
Let’s replace personal income tax with a consumption tax.
So, the taxes you pay when you buy stuff increases, but that is what replaces the income tax. In other words, if you buy less stuff you will pay less taxes. Businesses still get taxed separately, but their write-offs would obviously be better considering the inherit tax that goes with all of the products and services supporting their business.
Maybe that’s too crazy, so how about a very low flat tax plus consumption tax.
How about a 5% flat tax on all money earned (and we’ll still throw in a few tax incentives like dependents, mortgage tax adjustments, etc). Since people with a few more bucks will be buying the yachts and the luxury items, the taxes they will be paying will go up according to all of the stuff they spend their money on. I don’t know if these concepts are feasible, so maybe the better place to start is to start cutting out government programs and services since the government just costs way too much money. If we cut out enough, then the taxes we pay will be reduced.
Labels: government, law, money, politics, president, taxes
¶ 3:10 PM 2 Comments
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Legalize Stuff
This is more from the What Would You Do As President? series. These are all items that I may or may not agree with, but they are pretty interesting to talk about. How about we just start legalizing all kinds of stuff? These are what some people think:
The immediate red flag is that if you don't go to jail for dealing drugs, then it'll get worse and worse. The best response to that is to regulate and tax the living crap out of selling recreational drugs - and to stick a heavy fine on those that do it illegally. Heck, while we're legalizing, regulating, and taxing the entire drug industry, let's legalize, regulate, and tax prostitution because all of that tax money would probably pay for a free universal health plan. Oh, and da ho'z wouldn't need no mo' P.I.M.P.S, fo' shizzle.
Going back to the druggies, I don't even think you'd have to lower the rap sheet implications for continued participation in the illegal drug trade. If it was a felony before, it still is. You just pay a hefty fine instead of doing jail time.
Cannibas Sativa (hemp) has a bazillion industrial uses. It's pretty much as useful as water. Millions of products could be produced from it, and it grows like a weed! Dude!!
I know that I don't agree with doing drugs, but why is there a double standard? Alcohol is a drug and it is legal, regulated, and taxed. Cigars and cigarettes are addictive, give you that 10 second high the first few times you do them, yet you can buy them everywhere. Marijuana is really not much different, so why is it illegal? Or, on the other side of the coin, why is alcohol legal? What about harder drugs? Maybe it's just the really hard and crazy addictive drugs (I'm thinking heroin) that should be illegal. Why are we only allowed to have one legal drug, and everything else will put you in jail?
You know what's weird? I always considered myself on the straight-edge "stick those druggies in jail" side of the equation, but there are too many inconsistencies for me to be happy about the current state of affairs. Besides, I tip a few back now and again, so why should I be allowed to look down upon pot smokers and other drug users unless they have truly destroyed their lives to the point that they have become complete degenerates? Alcoholics can also become degenerates or have little impact on their lives - so why the double standard?
- I would legalize hemp for industrial uses. There are so many great industrial uses for hemp that it is absolutely stupid not to be using it.
- Legalize ALL drugs (this includes regulation and taxation. Want to end the illegal drug trade? This is the fastest way.)
- Pardon and release non-violent drug offenders to help with prison overcrowding - stick 'em with a fine instead.
- Reverse laws that punish victimless crimes.
The immediate red flag is that if you don't go to jail for dealing drugs, then it'll get worse and worse. The best response to that is to regulate and tax the living crap out of selling recreational drugs - and to stick a heavy fine on those that do it illegally. Heck, while we're legalizing, regulating, and taxing the entire drug industry, let's legalize, regulate, and tax prostitution because all of that tax money would probably pay for a free universal health plan. Oh, and da ho'z wouldn't need no mo' P.I.M.P.S, fo' shizzle.
Going back to the druggies, I don't even think you'd have to lower the rap sheet implications for continued participation in the illegal drug trade. If it was a felony before, it still is. You just pay a hefty fine instead of doing jail time.
Cannibas Sativa (hemp) has a bazillion industrial uses. It's pretty much as useful as water. Millions of products could be produced from it, and it grows like a weed! Dude!!
I know that I don't agree with doing drugs, but why is there a double standard? Alcohol is a drug and it is legal, regulated, and taxed. Cigars and cigarettes are addictive, give you that 10 second high the first few times you do them, yet you can buy them everywhere. Marijuana is really not much different, so why is it illegal? Or, on the other side of the coin, why is alcohol legal? What about harder drugs? Maybe it's just the really hard and crazy addictive drugs (I'm thinking heroin) that should be illegal. Why are we only allowed to have one legal drug, and everything else will put you in jail?
You know what's weird? I always considered myself on the straight-edge "stick those druggies in jail" side of the equation, but there are too many inconsistencies for me to be happy about the current state of affairs. Besides, I tip a few back now and again, so why should I be allowed to look down upon pot smokers and other drug users unless they have truly destroyed their lives to the point that they have become complete degenerates? Alcoholics can also become degenerates or have little impact on their lives - so why the double standard?
Labels: alcohol, drugs, law, politics, president, prison, prostitution, taxes
¶ 3:46 PM 1 Comments
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Entitlement and Mandatory Service
After last night's State of the Union address by George W, I was reflecting on some of the items suggested in my previous post What Would You Do As President?
I want to think about entitlement and mandatory service. The talking points from that post follow:
It is very obvious that the entitlement programs are bankrupting the government and something, somewhere is gonna have to give at some point.
Bush has one plan: privatize social security savings. The first bullet point simply decides to drop it. It doesn't really provide any details, but I'm sure a complete removal of social security while allowing grandfathered recipients to stay on would cause quite an uproar. Perhaps he means more of a phased diminishing of what we currently know as social security until it gets to a point where it no longer exists as we currently know it.
Medicare/Medicaid is another entitlement program that costs bazillions of dollars. I mean, I guess we don't want all of our nation's seniors to be forgotten and left to die because their medical expenses are too expensive (yes, I know seniors are not the only users of those programs...).
What are the alternatives? Nationalized health care? Privatized Medicare programs? Letting people get sick and die long before they would if health care was provided for them?
I don't even want to get into other entitlement programs like welfare, but let's just say that lots of money gets spent by the government on citizens that put far less into the system than they are now receiving. It's a small case of take from the rich and give to the needy.
How can the government pay for all of it?
It reminds me of JFK when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". When everything is boiled down the government can only do things that it has the resources to do. Those resources come from the people. We usually think of resources as dollars, so that translates to various taxes. However, it could also mean "free" service to the country.
Israel requires all of it's citizens to participate in mandatory military service. That applies to both males AND females. This is addressed by the last two bullet points. Mandatory civil service is a much more realistic concept than mandatory military service so more diverse opportunities would be made available to those required to serve. Mandatory boot camp is a separate but interesting concept. This would actually cost the government more money than it would possibly raise. However, I can immediately see a handful of benefits:
The other option is to have greatly increased taxation levels - much more than today. We are talking at least an extra $1000/person every year. Minimum.
Which choice sounds the best? Eliminating or drastically changing entitlement programs, creating mandatory civil service, or dramatically increasing taxes? Probably some combination, but how would it look?
I want to think about entitlement and mandatory service. The talking points from that post follow:
- Social Security and Medicare stop. You can stay on, but if you are under 40... you can forget ever using them. They are entitlement and bankrupting the government
- Mandatory civil service. We can talk about giving you college tuition, but you serve. It can be military, or it can be civil (be a meter maid, that's fine with me). You will do something to give back to your country for a little while.
- Require all able-bodied citizens between ages 18 and 35 (male and female) to undergo military bootcamp. This is NOT a draft however; after going through bootcamp, you are not required to serve in the military.
It is very obvious that the entitlement programs are bankrupting the government and something, somewhere is gonna have to give at some point.
Bush has one plan: privatize social security savings. The first bullet point simply decides to drop it. It doesn't really provide any details, but I'm sure a complete removal of social security while allowing grandfathered recipients to stay on would cause quite an uproar. Perhaps he means more of a phased diminishing of what we currently know as social security until it gets to a point where it no longer exists as we currently know it.
Medicare/Medicaid is another entitlement program that costs bazillions of dollars. I mean, I guess we don't want all of our nation's seniors to be forgotten and left to die because their medical expenses are too expensive (yes, I know seniors are not the only users of those programs...).
What are the alternatives? Nationalized health care? Privatized Medicare programs? Letting people get sick and die long before they would if health care was provided for them?
I don't even want to get into other entitlement programs like welfare, but let's just say that lots of money gets spent by the government on citizens that put far less into the system than they are now receiving. It's a small case of take from the rich and give to the needy.
How can the government pay for all of it?
It reminds me of JFK when he said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". When everything is boiled down the government can only do things that it has the resources to do. Those resources come from the people. We usually think of resources as dollars, so that translates to various taxes. However, it could also mean "free" service to the country.
Israel requires all of it's citizens to participate in mandatory military service. That applies to both males AND females. This is addressed by the last two bullet points. Mandatory civil service is a much more realistic concept than mandatory military service so more diverse opportunities would be made available to those required to serve. Mandatory boot camp is a separate but interesting concept. This would actually cost the government more money than it would possibly raise. However, I can immediately see a handful of benefits:
- Many boot camp graduates would continue on into the military as inertia would simply make that an obvious choice
- All U.S. citizens would have a very basic level of military training. This is important as our borders do not provide an impenetrable barrier to war and terrorism. An attacker that makes it to domestic territory would meet a more ready force if boot camp was mandatory
- Fringe benefits of increased structure, respect, and healthy habits
The other option is to have greatly increased taxation levels - much more than today. We are talking at least an extra $1000/person every year. Minimum.
Which choice sounds the best? Eliminating or drastically changing entitlement programs, creating mandatory civil service, or dramatically increasing taxes? Probably some combination, but how would it look?
Labels: entitlement, government, military, politics, president, taxes, welfare
¶ 2:14 PM 0 Comments