- NO HIDDEN TAXES ON THE CITIZENS - NO TAX ON BUSINESS THEN NO NEED FOR LOOPHOLE HUH?
- Permalink Reply by on
- You will not get to zero Lock. The people will never buy in.A low flat percentage charged to corporations on Revenue - 0 to 5%. It will produce revenue to the government, satisfy business (less cost than what we have now to "comply") and sate those that think business should pay a tax. Mathematically it is not possible to pass on this type of tax to the consumer.But the level playing field must include a simular low -one rate fits all tax on individuals, also with no exception, exemptions or exclusions (Until the 16thA gets repealed) and/or a consumption tax program.And, the reform must also provide for a simple BBA: The Federal Budget may not exceed i.e. 18% of the previous years GDP. Spending must comply with this and Article 1 Section 8 Constitutional authority.But, to stay in context of the reform, we must also implement recipricol tarriffs and a labor differential tarriff.Please take it all together.No new debt.No loopholes to worry about.Stable tax reform.Level playing field for Trade.A lot less for lobbyists, to lobby for.Arguably increased revenue to the government to start paying off debt without being punitive, or selecting winners/losers - dictating outcomes via tax code legislation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Why does the Congress need a balanced budget amendment if they are going to limited to spending only on Article I section 8 clauses 1 - 18 items? Most of the current budget of 20+% of GDP is spent on non Article I items. Only Defense and postal highways, water ways and a few other items. So why do we 18% of last years GDP - did you think this through?I agree that all need to pay a flat tax rich man, beggar man - thief, all must contribute and have skin in the game. I disagree about business taxes as it gives the Congress a hidden tax to play with. The people do understand that there are hidden taxes and a business that makes 8% net profit before taxes pays a big percentage of profit and it will be passed on in the price of the product as costs must be recognized and they are part and parcel of the desired return on investment.Tax reform that conforms to the Constitution is not easy to get in place for many Federal services must be sent to the States with the money from the current 16th amendment funds until the new amendments can be ratified.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We will never get to Artile 1 Section 8 spending - just being realistic. It is a target only IMO.The 18% is Maximum Budget allowed. No more, but could be less. If revenues dont meet spending, the spending gets cut. Balanced. No new debt. I am tired of the argument that we dont need to control Congress spending, they should just do thier job. The have shown conclusively they WILL NOT. Imagine politicians bargaining for votes based on how low they think the % should be instead of todays bs.You must be misunderstanding my tax plan for both business and individuals, as I did not add that those percentages would be maximum allowed. Nothing to play with except LESS of a percentage. The hidden taxes we pay are excise, use type fees - like add-ons to utility bills. Those need to be eliminated IMO. My proposal deletes the notion of taxing profit. All the games played to spend on favored expeses by the tax code to get a lower net before taxation -gone. Better for business.We tax revenue so it cant be buried in pricing and passed on to consumers. Ideally it would be paired to a flat unchangeable national sales tax at the consumer level only - no exceptions, rather than an individual income tax (repeal 16thA).So, the only federal taxes would be on consumption at retail, and a transaction flat percentage tax on business revenue, and tarriffs.The percentage of GDP limit of spending is a built-in debt ceiling and balanced budget mechanism.Make 3/4 of Congres required to change any of this.100x better than what we have now IMO and does not require a new Constitutional Amendment, only the repal of the 16thA. of course repealing the 17th giving Ststaes a say again, would cement it I think.
- Permalink Reply by on
- if you leave the 14th and 17th in place the Congress and the Courts will continue to usurp so the goals of your and drive big trucks through the holes created with the court presidents - maybe not progressive income tax but duties, tariffs and trade wars to raise more money.Sorry, but just taking one gun from a thief and leaving him two [that you made them agree by 3/4 to shoot us] guns to kill our freedoms and limited government ideas. JMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock - Go back to the beginning where I said the Amendments need to be repealed. For crying out loud man. We dont need to make evey discussion like a pile of spagetti where everything touches everything and must be complete in every detail.I'm sorry. Enough for a while. Getting on the pony and hoof it for a few days in the woods. Nothing personal.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I have been here all along - if you only punish a thief for stealing one of you PONIES and you say it is OK that you stole the other two - that is OK with you? Get a good night rest and think it out. Incrementalism has never never won a debate or a war. IMO we are in a war for the future of the Republic. AS Franklin answered the lady on what kind of government have they given us? - "A Republic if you can keep it"
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock - I dont understand your gun analogy.Flat tax type reforms do not give additional weapons to anyone as there are no exceptions, exemptions or exclusions - period.By tying a budget to GDP automatically makes the budget move on a sliding scale with the health or lack thereof of the economy.Or maybe you mean the Corporate tax should be non-existant? Is that the "added gun"? Well I dont think it is when you consider small business corporations - they pay taxes at a higher effective rate than the large Corporations now, whether corporate rates (not as many deductions) or personal rates -LLC. They pay. I seriously doubt the public will ever go for zero taxes on Corporations. In their minds (not likely to change on this one) it would be rewarding the rich. They would be in the streets with torches & pitchforks saying - Why must we pay all the taxes and the rich corporations pay nothing! Fat chance.or maybe as I said, i just dont get your guns analogy.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ok let me try to communicate the principle another way. For the first most part the Courts kept the Congress and the Executive in check - rejected income tax, rejected re distribution, rejected much of the Progressive goals. This started to change in 1913 with the Income tax and the Fed giving a very large increase in power to the Federal government [first gun and usurpation] - then came FDR and the second gun where One vote in the Supreme Court saved nine [Justices that is] which is the second gun giving Congress almost unlimited powers over the States. Now two guns are combined into forcing huge holes in the 14th amendment and the 17th amendment giving even more Power to the Federal government and reducing the rights of the states and the people.Go now to the law suits regarding court ordered busing [14th amendment the second gun] and then they also found the clauses like the necessary and proper, the 14th amendment general clauses - has been very abusive. see number 5.Now the the Progressive high rate income tax became the big gun money to bribe States not to nullify and to accept usurpation. They also got enough money to bribe the voters [civil service Unions and other Unions] - removing the 16th limits this gun but leaves the two most dangerous the usurpation of clauses and the 14th amendment.It is like saying we have neutralized Russia because we torn down the wall. IMO you either fix it all or you are just extending the usurpation of powers and they {congress and president} will just increase all permits fees, duties and tariffs until they replace the cash flow and the people will suffer even more as other nations retaliate - we will then have a trade war without any energy policy or manufacturing in place.the 16th is just one gun and the other two will kill the Republic just as surly. If I sound harsh it is because compromise is a form of losing when you are speaking of our Constitutional freedoms.
Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock - That clarifies your point. But that means biting off in a single chunk more than the people will chew and the end result is being right without any changes. Incrementalism got us where we are now, it will get us out, hopfully in bigger chunks than smaller.So, leaving the 14th and the 17th aside, only for the moment, we must take a step in the right direction - that the people will follow.Like it or not a tax plan simular that which I propose is being embraced more every day. Simplification. Pragmatic - could easily lead to repeal of the first of the 3 Constitutional harpies.Once people see it works, they are open to more - the 14thA and 17thA. We must start at the lowest common denominator -taxation. The first step, certainly not the last. It also breaks the back of the class warfare tactic. If everyone pays the same percentage 'thier fair share" taxation is removed from the class warfare debate.If you want to do all of it, in one fell swoop - all or nothing, then I will not go down that road, not because it is wrong, but because it wont work. We need to get this Country confident again so we can work from a stronger position. I truly do not believe there is enough time on the current track to fix it all before it falls over under its own weight.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Corporations are owned by millions of not rich citizens in mutual funds, 401K, Union pension funds, State and local pension plans, insurance companies, Trust companies - The concept of the big self centered corporation that wants to starve all the people and just make money on the backs of those that labor long and hard to make the corporation succeed and grow.The corporation is just a method to raise working capital to expand and grow by selling itself instead of borrowing from banks. They are the stable source of employment for million and millions of citizens. They are beneficial to the economy not a hindrance as some want to see them? JMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- New survey finds young Hispanics open to conservative valuesWritten by on July 17, 2011, 12:37 PMNew survey finds young Hispanics open to conservative values
By: Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner, 7/13/11
Politicians, campaign strategists, academics, journalists and others who assume Hispanics aged 18-29 favor higher taxes, more government spending and increased government regulation of business are in for a shock, according to the results of a new survey to be released tomorrow.
The survey, which has a four percent margin of error (plus or minus), interviewed 600 people was conducted April 16-22 by Kellyanne Conway's the polling company inc./Women Trend survey firm for Generation Opportunity, a recently launched conservative activist group that aims to educate and mobilize young Americans about the economic challenges facing their generation.
Among the results were these:
• By nearly a 3:1 ratio, Hispanic young adults prefer “reducing federal spending” (69%) to “raising taxes on individuals” (27%) in order to balance the federal budget.
• 70% of Hispanic young adults would decrease federal spending if given the chance to set America’s fiscal priorities.
• A 57%-majority of Hispanics agree that “if taxes on business profits were reduced, companies would be more likely to hire."
• In a separate question, a 56%-majority concurred “the economy grows best when individuals are allowed to create businesses without government interference.”
The survey results encourage the conclusion that the young cohort in the country's Hispanic population is much more amenable to appeals based on limited government, individual rights and free markets than the conventional wisdom suggests.
“The desire to work, the drive to succeed, and the ambition to build personal independence are shared among all young Americans. Monthly reports on unemployment are relevant – the numbers include countless patriotic and industrious Hispanic youth whose aspirations to work, build a business, or pursue a profession have been delayed by a lack of economic opportunity,” said Paul T. Conway, president of Generation Opportunity.
“Elected officials should respect their views and reduce the government interference in the economy which has denied the nation the benefit of their creativity and created a restraint on their dreams to improve their own lives and the lives of their families.”
Conway was chief of staff to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao during the second Bush administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment