Some things I would like to see happen

Mushroom · 06-11-08, 06:38 PM

Here is what I would like to see happen by the government:

ENACT THE FAIR TAX
You would be surprised how much more money would come into the government coffers when all of the tax shelters are gone. Not only that, but the IRS would be cut in half inside of six months and then dwindle further over a five year period. You want to save money and reduce your tax burden? All you have to do is save your money and not spend it. Of course, that means that you would be required to manage your own money.
All of the money that has been hidden in offshore accounts and hedge funds does the person no good anymore. If they are taxed on the stuff they buy like big screen TV's, luxury vehicles, golf clubs, 32"off road tires, and 22" rims, then they are paying their taxes. Regardless of weather you obtain your money legally or not. You think drug dealers, thieves, embezzlers, and hit men pay taxes? You think CEO's, CFO's, your senator, or your congressman pays the same taxes you do? The answer to both questions is no. But I'll bet you that they both buy expensive items all the time. When do they pay their share?

LINE ITEM LEGISLATION
This is NOT a line item veto! A line item veto grants way too much power to the office of the President, effectively allowing him/her to pick and choose what goes and what stays. Line Item Legislation means EXACTLY what it says. Each individual line item gets voted on for its merit. Not the normal wheeling and dealing that goes on in the house and the senate. The "I'll vote for your bill if you vote for mine" stuff is counter productive and breeds corruption. If line item legislation was used, government spending would be cut by 1/2 at the least. And then, additional funds could be granted to each state for needed projects. Especially in the areas of public services like roads, utilities, safety, schools, and environmental concerns. No more "bridge to nowhere" projects being sneaked in to bills that have real merit. As things stand now, if you wanted a bill submitted that would improve every child's education at a reasonable cost, all I would have to do to get the bill defeated would be to submit an earmark or "rider" stating that it would be legal to give LSD to 8th graders. That is how a good bill gets defeated. If it gets defeated, the people that voted against it are accused of shortchanging America's children. If you vote for it, you are now on record as wanting to give 8th graders LSD. Yes, this kind of underhanded practice goes on ALL THE TIME! No wonder congress and the senate never get anything done huh?

CAMPAIGN REFORM
You want real campaign reform? Well guess what, campaigns cost money. Instead of money determining the outcome of an election, let people make up their mind on their own. The majority of elections are won through advertising and "name recognition". Which means the more TV spots you can pay for, the better your chances of winning the election. Which also equates to "only the rich will ever be in public office". Here is the solution:

Each candidate gets an equal amount of air time for their level of campaign. Local government gets local coverage, state gets state coverage, and national gets national coverage. And who pays for the air time you may be asking? Make it a tax deduction for that media coverage. Each candidate gets two ads per day on TV and radio. Two adds per week in the paper. This would keep the playing field even, allowing people without a personal fortune to run for public office. How many people do you know that would do right for the people of this country but couldn't beat the spending power of one of these rich politicians that have never been in the common mans position? All of this "I was raised in a blue collar family" BS doesn't wash with me. They may have been raised in a blue collar family, but they have never had to pay the bills AS a blue collar family. They are so out of touch that it borders on ridiculous.

DIRECT POLL VOTING
How many times have you said "my congressman/senator voted for THAT?" Or do you even know how they voted? Here is a way to do it and make your voice be heard:
Each and every elected official should be required to have a state/federal website that outlines and explains bills that will soon come up for a vote in plain English (I happen to think that all legislation should be written in plain English anyway. But a "Legalese" to English translation will work). In order to be able to submit your opinion about any given piece of legislation to your elected official, you would be required to register to vote to be granted permission to submit data to the website using a "voter ID number" or something of that nature, not your social security number. Then, you could express to your elected official if you are for or against that piece of legislation. You could then track how people in your district/state voted on it and also see how your elected official voted. If a piece of legislation was voted overwhelmingly against by your district/state, and your elected official still voted for it, then the people would know that the elected official can, and should, be held accountable for it during the next election. Think of it like forced honesty in politics. This could also get rid of the archaic Absentee Ballot. Military Personnel are all using CAC cards (controlled access cards) that allow them to log into secure networks. These cards provide single point authentication as to the person's identity. A website that would allow people that are abroad (one could be issued with a passport as well so people could vote from the embassy in their area) can be started that gives anyone, military or civilian, the ability to vote and actually have their vote counted.
Some have argued the poverty angle on this issue. "What if a person can't afford a computer? You ever think of that wiseguy??" No me. But the public library system already did. Besides, this is only if you want to get involved and be heard. Not just at the ballot box every 2, 4, or 6 years. Another common argument is that House and Senate legislation and voting records are a matter of public record and are already available online. Ever try to read it (let alone find it)? And then the voting record is in a completely different area.

Please tell me what you think of these ideas. I would like to know.

TurtleDude · 06-11-08, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Here is what I would like to see happen by the government:

ENACT THE FAIR TAX
You would be surprised how much more money would come into the government coffers when all of the tax shelters are gone. Not only that, but the IRS would be cut in half inside of six months and then dwindle further over a five year period. You want to save money and reduce your tax burden? All you have to do is save your money and not spend it. Of course, that means that you would be required to manage your own money.
All of the money that has been hidden in offshore accounts and hedge funds does the person no good anymore. If they are taxed on the stuff they buy like big screen TV's, luxury vehicles, golf clubs, 32"off road tires, and 22" rims, then they are paying their taxes. Regardless of weather you obtain your money legally or not. You think drug dealers, thieves, embezzlers, and hit men pay taxes? You think CEO's, CFO's, your senator, or your congressman pays the same taxes you do? The answer to both questions is no. But I'll bet you that they both buy expensive items all the time. When do they pay their share?

LINE ITEM LEGISLATION
This is NOT a line item veto! A line item veto grants way too much power to the office of the President, effectively allowing him/her to pick and choose what goes and what stays. Line Item Legislation means EXACTLY what it says. Each individual line item gets voted on for its merit. Not the normal wheeling and dealing that goes on in the house and the senate. The "I'll vote for your bill if you vote for mine" stuff is counter productive and breeds corruption. If line item legislation was used, government spending would be cut by 1/2 at the least. And then, additional funds could be granted to each state for needed projects. Especially in the areas of public services like roads, utilities, safety, schools, and environmental concerns. No more "bridge to nowhere" projects being sneaked in to bills that have real merit. As things stand now, if you wanted a bill submitted that would improve every child's education at a reasonable cost, all I would have to do to get the bill defeated would be to submit an earmark or "rider" stating that it would be legal to give LSD to 8th graders. That is how a good bill gets defeated. If it gets defeated, the people that voted against it are accused of shortchanging America's children. If you vote for it, you are now on record as wanting to give 8th graders LSD. Yes, this kind of underhanded practice goes on ALL THE TIME! No wonder congress and the senate never get anything done huh?

CAMPAIGN REFORM
You want real campaign reform? Well guess what, campaigns cost money. Instead of money determining the outcome of an election, let people make up their mind on their own. The majority of elections are won through advertising and "name recognition". Which means the more TV spots you can pay for, the better your chances of winning the election. Which also equates to "only the rich will ever be in public office". Here is the solution:

Each candidate gets an equal amount of air time for their level of campaign. Local government gets local coverage, state gets state coverage, and national gets national coverage. And who pays for the air time you may be asking? Make it a tax deduction for that media coverage. Each candidate gets two ads per day on TV and radio. Two adds per week in the paper. This would keep the playing field even, allowing people without a personal fortune to run for public office. How many people do you know that would do right for the people of this country but couldn't beat the spending power of one of these rich politicians that have never been in the common mans position? All of this "I was raised in a blue collar family" BS doesn't wash with me. They may have been raised in a blue collar family, but they have never had to pay the bills AS a blue collar family. They are so out of touch that it borders on ridiculous.

DIRECT POLL VOTING
How many times have you said "my congressman/senator voted for THAT?" Or do you even know how they voted? Here is a way to do it and make your voice be heard:
Each and every elected official should be required to have a state/federal website that outlines and explains bills that will soon come up for a vote in plain English (I happen to think that all legislation should be written in plain English anyway. But a "Legalese" to English translation will work). In order to be able to submit your opinion about any given piece of legislation to your elected official, you would be required to register to vote to be granted permission to submit data to the website using a "voter ID number" or something of that nature, not your social security number. Then, you could express to your elected official if you are for or against that piece of legislation. You could then track how people in your district/state voted on it and also see how your elected official voted. If a piece of legislation was voted overwhelmingly against by your district/state, and your elected official still voted for it, then the people would know that the elected official can, and should, be held accountable for it during the next election. Think of it like forced honesty in politics. This could also get rid of the archaic Absentee Ballot. Military Personnel are all using CAC cards (controlled access cards) that allow them to log into secure networks. These cards provide single point authentication as to the person's identity. A website that would allow people that are abroad (one could be issued with a passport as well so people could vote from the embassy in their area) can be started that gives anyone, military or civilian, the ability to vote and actually have their vote counted.
Some have argued the poverty angle on this issue. "What if a person can't afford a computer? You ever think of that wiseguy??" No me. But the public library system already did. Besides, this is only if you want to get involved and be heard. Not just at the ballot box every 2, 4, or 6 years. Another common argument is that House and Senate legislation and voting records are a matter of public record and are already available online. Ever try to read it (let alone find it)? And then the voting record is in a completely different area.

Please tell me what you think of these ideas. I would like to know.

First two are good-third, I have to think about. fourth I oppose

Mushroom · 06-11-08, 10:09 PM

Please explain Turtledude. I like to have as much feedback as I can.

Voidwar · 06-12-08, 01:22 PM

The Fair Tax is idiocy. It is a VAT tax, and haphazardly applied.

Used cars would be worth 23% more than new ones under this silly tax.

How would it impact New homes vs existing ones ?

If you try to tax while they spend, they will simply spend outside your taxing jurisdiction. Tax while they earn, since your government provides the umbrella under which they do so.

The proper tax is 20% of income no deductions. (capital gains IS income)

20 cents of the first dollar, 20 cents of the millionth dollar.

The "fair tax" is a poorly thought out plan, based on an initial error of where to apply taxation.

Mushroom · 06-12-08, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

The Fair Tax is idiocy. It is a VAT tax, and haphazardly applied.

Used cars would be worth 23% more than new ones under this silly tax.

How would it impact New homes vs existing ones ?

If you try to tax while they spend, they will simply spend outside your taxing jurisdiction. Tax while they earn, since your government provides the umbrella under which they do so.

The proper tax is 20% of income no deductions. (capital gains IS income)

20 cents of the first dollar, 20 cents of the millionth dollar.

The "fair tax" is a poorly thought out plan, based on an initial error of where to apply taxation.

Based on what you said you would be in favor if a flat tax then? (20% across the board) The problem I see with that is that if it's not claimed as income, it can't be taxed as income. It would be the same as we have now. The way that people would get around all of it is simple really.
(example)
If I am an international corporation (can be set up by an attorney for almost anyone that can afford it) then any money I make is sent to the account of the international corporation by mail or wire transfer. Since the money goes to an international corporation, no taxes are withheld for services. I simply withdraw money from the corporate account, thus...i pay no taxes since I have no income. (This stuff happens now.)

As far as capitol gains (such as with selling a house) It's not applied evenly as it is right now. You only owe CGT from the proceeds of your home if you lived owned it less than 2 years. (Think of it like a "flip this house" tax). The fair tax does have it's flaws. Such as, if everyone started saving their money, taxes drop and the government is forced to tax other things.
Recession would cause a drop in tax input to the government as well.

The current tax system has all of law abiding middle America covering the tab for everything. LOW income actually gets a kickback, while HIGH income can afford tax shelters, offshore accounts, and hedge funds.

The problem is, people that make a lot of money are always going to have ways of not paying taxes. The trick is to make them pay for it by way of the expensive items they buy. Not only that, but the people that report no income at all but are driving a new car every year. As things stand now, as an active duty military member, I pay 21.4% in federal taxes (Federal, FICA, Social Security, Medical tax). I am lucky enough not to have to pay state taxes since I am from a state that does not require active duty military to pay state tax. If I did pay it however, I would be at around 36% of my annual pay taken out. A Flat tax would actually decrease the amount of capitol available to the government.

Do you have any thoughts on the other ideas I had? I would like to hear them if you do.

Bleeding Head Ken · 06-12-08, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

CAMPAIGN REFORM
You want real campaign reform? Well guess what, campaigns cost money. Instead of money determining the outcome of an election, let people make up their mind on their own. The majority of elections are won through advertising and "name recognition". Which means the more TV spots you can pay for, the better your chances of winning the election. Which also equates to "only the rich will ever be in public office". Here is the solution:

Will we also end celebrity endorsements? What about incumbent appearances in the media where they tout all the wonderful things they've done to..er, for us?

Politicians will always find ways to sell political favors and the buyers are always going to make sure that you vote for willing sellers. The best campaign "reform" is to eliminate the power to sell those favors.

As for Direct Poll voting, I think the idea is convoluted and somewhat dangerous; but I am all for open government and periods for public comment before a bill can be passed.

Mushroom · 06-12-08, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleeding Head Ken

Will we also end celebrity endorsements? What about incumbent appearances in the media where they tout all the wonderful things they've done to..er, for us?

Politicians will always find ways to sell political favors and the buyers are always going to make sure that you vote for willing sellers. The best campaign "reform" is to eliminate the power to sell those favors.

As for Direct Poll voting, I think the idea is convoluted and somewhat dangerous; but I am all for open government and periods for public comment before a bill can be passed.

You do raise a good point about the celebrity and incumbent endorsements. How ever, those are only ever covered on the news and on websites like youtube. Those cost no money to the candidate. But i agree with the implied sentiment concerning celebrity endorsements. I couldn't honestly care less who the people in Holly-weird think I should vote for or against. Like when Susan Sarandon said that she would move out of the country if McCain wins. I'll help her pack. We heard the same stuff during the last 2 elections from Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, and other celebrities that think that just because they are famous, we should do what they do.

The Direct Poll Voting is only a tool for determining the will if the constituency, and a means to track how your district/senator voted in relation to the constituencies input. Just makes it easier for people to get involved and really see how the person that is representing them is performing his/her office. It could even be done on a single site (granted, it would be a big site and hard to navigate at that point, which is why I suggested the individual sites) But it could also be separated in to two (house and senate) or by state. just look up your zip code and it puts you in the right place. The reason for the registration is to stop left and right wing bloggers and activists from changing the outcome of a vote with the click of a mouse. One person= one vote. One you provide your input (and I know how people can change their minds with the volumes of information out there) you must then retract a vote (that is assigned to your registry ID number) in order to vote on the issue again. Hope that explains it a little more clearly. (I re-read what I put originally and it looks like I am advocating online voting...not what I am doing here)

Bleeding Head Ken · 06-12-08, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

I'll help her pack. We heard the same stuff during the last 2 elections from Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, and other celebrities that think that just because they are famous, we should do what they do.

Not all celebrities are from Hollywood. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, is a major radio personality/celebrity. My point is that if you limit speech, then those who are most spoken about will be protected in elections, and those in office will do everything in their power to make sure their name is heard far and wide as often as posible.

Quote:

The Direct Poll Voting is only a tool for determining the will if the constituency, and a means to track how your district/senator voted in relation to the constituencies input. Just makes it easier for people to get involved and really see how the person that is representing them is performing his/her office.

Most people are going to vote on whether they felt that their candidate did/will do something for them. I don't care if my Congressperson voted the will of the majority (the majority of those willing to take the time to get involved that is) but whether he is attuned to my values. That information is already available, but I'm not against making it more readily available.

As for activists and those on the extremes, the extremes will come out to vote far more often than moderates. This is why so many candidates seem to be far left or far right than the average voter. The activists will organize far better than the average voter and skew the results as well.

Mushroom · 06-12-08, 07:14 PM

Good input on all accounts Ken.

Rush Limbaugh makes my blood boil. So does Neal Boortz, Ann coulter, Chris Mattews, Kieth Oberman, and Michael Savage. But again, they are media. Anyone that has access to media air time will inevitably try to push their way of thinking on everyone else. It's always happened and always will. The media (either left, right, center, or completely blind) will cover all cadidates how they want. To force them to do any different is censorship. This idea is to limit the amount off money that a candidate needs to raise and spend which would afford the "liitle guy" at least a decent chance. As passed elections have shown, sometimes it's not the candidate, it's the commercial. I know people that couldn't even tell you who is running (Which is a shame). More and more people are getting thier political idiations from the news they choose to watch. More and more they are listening to John Stewart and Stephan Colbert. Just plain creepy when you get your political news from comedy central.

Bleeding Head Ken · 06-13-08, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mushroom

More and more they are listening to John Stewart and Stephan Colbert. Just plain creepy when you get your political news from comedy central.

The human mind learns through experiential means. Just telling someone the facts as you see them isn't usually going to win over those with whom you want to share ideas, unless they are already inclined to do so already. However, telling stories and using analogies are excellent methods of transmission of ideas. Take, for instance, Aesop's fables. We all know them and instantly recognize the stories, and the morals of them when we hear them again.

Comedy is also a form of experiential story telling whereby facts are mixed with a little fiction, or given a comical headline, or drawn together in some way that makes people laugh. In this way, people become receptive to thinking outside their normal patterns. The fact that comedy news shows actually discuss real life news and politics is, to me, much better than your average tragidrama which often distorts the truth terribly.