TAXES

[Clocker]

I think we should have NO income tax in the United States (or anywhere). All the mony we make should be ours to spend as we like.

Instead, I advocate an all encompassing consumption tax (i.e. only have a federal sales tax). No state taxes or anything, just the consumption tax. The more you make, the more you are likely to spend. The more you spend, the more taxes you pay. I guess a number of about 40% would be reasonable. Either way, it is in OUR control...

Thoughts?
C

 

[James]

With all due respect, that's a silly idea. Consumption taxes hurt those in lower income brackets much more than the rich. You feel pain paying income tax because you have a high income and therefore it seems like a lot of money. Consumption taxes you don't notice. For poor people, it's the other way round - they have low rates of income tax so the biggest effect on their income comes from paying direct consumption taxes on basic items like food, petrol, heat, electricity, communications etc. Raise the consumption tax and all you're doing is making it harder for them to buy food. Then there would have to be a whole process (and lots of money) put in place to even out the system, which is really what income taxes are supposed to do anyway.

Finally, consumption taxes are extremely politically unpopular.

 

[Clocker]

Good points.

Keep in mind that those lower income people also have a lot more $ in their pockets now too because there is no income tax for them...either. For the rest of the community (without jobs...unable to survive... I guess there is federal assistance.


Perhaps some type of hybrid would work. Food and housing might be taxed at lower rates with more luxury type items taxed at higher rates.

Doesn't sound all that silly to me if you give it some more thought...

Screw politically correct thinking...I'm not running for election here or anything.

C

 

[Cliptin]

Clocker, Think of the folks who already don't have to pay any taxes.

I'm for much less of my tax dollars going to the Fed and much more staying within my community.

I just thought of something. There shoud be a tax deduction for people who give to low-income community education programs. Community education programs increase the knowledge of the workforce and thereby improve the types of jobs available. The increased number of tax payers should directly impact the tax burdern of the giver.

 

[timwhit]

If you work for yourself as a consultant/contractor who deals mainly with cash then you can pretty easily lie to the government about how much you make and in turn pay a lot less taxes.

Ask Mercutio for more details...

I am willing to bet that 90% of contractors do it. My friend who works for a contractor always gets paid in cash and I bet the contractor gets paid in cash which is why he can do it that way.

 

[James]

Keep in mind that those lower income people also have a lot more $ in their pockets now too because there is no income tax for them...either.

My point is that where eg. my top marginal tax rate is 48%, 81% of the Australian taxpaying population pays a top marginal rate of 30% or less. Taking away a 30% or less tax rate has a comparitively smaller effect on their ability to spend compared with me. Yet I wouldn't spend much more than most on basic necessities like food than poorer people. So consumption taxes hurt lower wage earners much more than higher wage earners, which is the whole reason that direct taxation exists.

This is the whole reason that welfare groups usually strongly oppose indirect taxation and governments are in favour of it - it increases the total tax take by broadening the tax base.

 

[Clocker]

Keep in mind that those lower income people also have a lot more $ in their pockets now too because there is no income tax for them...either.

My point is that where eg. my top marginal tax rate is 48%, 81% of the Australian taxpaying population pays a top marginal rate of 30% or less. Taking away a 30% or less tax rate has a comparitively smaller effect on their ability to spend compared with me. Yet I wouldn't spend much more than most on basic necessities like food than poorer people. So consumption taxes hurt lower wage earners much more than higher wage earners, which is the whole reason that direct taxation exists.

This is the whole reason that welfare groups usually strongly oppose indirect taxation and governments are in favour of it - it increases the total tax take by broadening the tax base.

What do you think of a hybrid system as I mentioned?

I guess, one other problem with a consumption based tax is that it would probably be difficult to control the inevitable black market for goods that would be created...

C

 

[James]

Why should a rich person pay lower consuption tax on a $2M house just so a low income person can pay a lower tax on a $50K house? But then how do you decide what is the appropriate consumption tax rate for individuals? What's in the consumption tax and what's not? Who decides? How complicated does it become to administer? What effect does this have on consumer spending? How do small businesses pay for the extra overhead of becoming in essence unpaid tax collectors and all the resultant paperwork?

This has recently been done in Australia - a drop in personal tax rates in return for a 10% sales tax on almost everything. It has not been a good change for lower income earners but has been a positive boon to high wage earners (not surprising given the incumbent Liberal government here). The tax take has increased and now taxes have risen to 36% of GDP - one of the highest rates in the world. Unfortunately the press here is either unwilling or unable to explain this to the public.

 

[CougTek]

Clocker,

You obviously have earned high salaries for quite a while to develop such mentality. I have known both side of the medal and in a country where income taxes are much higher than the scant ~30% max you currently give to your government. The idea of progressive income tax is that when you are in the upper bracket, having a high percentage of your income taken out of your pocket still leave you well enough to live quite well nonetheless. Of course, it can be upseting sometimes to see the lion share that the government takes on your (supposedly) hard earned money, but it never hurts as much as any form of taxes (be it income or consumption) when you are in the bottom segment of the income bracket. People with a high salary give more to the state because they can afford (or at least if they can manage a budget correctly) to give more than the less wealthy ones.

Plus, more money earned = more money spent is absurdly wrong. Most of the time, it's more money earned, more money saved and spent, with the saved part increasing a lot quicker as the salary increases than the part that is spent.

At the limit, if one of the two taxation should disappear, it should be the consumption taxe a lot more than the income taxe. Preaching for the reverse can only be done by (wealthy) people with a) A lack of economical culture (no offense, but I think you fall in that category) b) People with no heart for the poorer ones.

 

[Clocker]

I'm not sure about the tax code in Australia but I'm fairly certain that a consumption based tax in the US would do nothing more than simplify the system rather than add complexity. The US tax code is somewhere in the range of 4000 pages long. Either way, it could not get much more complex anyway. Of couse, a simplified consumption tax will never happen just because it will put whole industries that are needed for administering and explaining the tax code to the people out of business.


Why should a person making a good living pay more taxes (on a % basis) than a person who is making less? Just because they are able? JUst because some (not all, of course) choose to be laxy free-loaders while they collect state/federal assistance? IMO, no. There should be no penalty for working hard and making a good living. It's the same with getting married. I get screwed on my taxes because I am married. It's kind of funny. Getting married is the politically/socially correct thing to do yet we are penalized for it by being taxed more.

If I can't have a consumption tax, I want a flat tax. Of course, I know that will never happen either. Simplifying the tax code will never happen because it will put acountants, lawyers, and politicians out of business and they will never let that hapen

C

 

[Handruin]

Clocker, Think of the folks who already don't have to pay any taxes.

I'm for much less of my tax dollars going to the Fed and much more staying within my community.

I just thought of something. There shoud be a tax deduction for people who give to low-income community education programs. Community education programs increase the knowledge of the workforce and thereby improve the types of jobs available. The increased number of tax payers should directly impact the tax burdern of the giver.

I like this idea! I'd give money to the community or people in need for a tax deduction. I'd rather see my money go to the people in need. I would also think it would be neat if I didn't give anything to the community, then that the money is not taxed, but rather put into a "need" pool or something like that where it can be distributed to others in need.

I don't know how well a system like this would work. I think it could become unfair, but the idea of being able to get someone off the street would make a small difference.

Or better, for each person on this community tax deduction system, they are assigned a person in need (it could remain anonymous). Depending on the amount of income you make, varies the person you are paired based on their need. This could help the hungry/homeless situation. Instead of focusing dollars on large places that help people scrape by, why not try to focus more money on a smaller amount of people? This way we can slowly help those in need by concentrating the help. Once they get on their feet to support themselves, we then move on to the more needy.

 

[Clocker]

Preaching for the reverse can only be done by (wealthy) people with a) A lack of economical culture (no offense, but I think you fall in that category) b) People with no heart for the poorer ones.

Tell that to all the people I see who live around here and in the 'poorer' communities around . They don't have a pot to piss in, they live in a run-downt POS house and they complain that they can't pay their bills ...BUT...they are still driving around their new 2002 Cadillac Escalade with $8000 worth of 21" wheels and tires added on to it. All the while they are still collecting state assistance which I provide to them with my hard earned tax dollars.

And no...I have never been rich and I probably make less $ than most of you IT pros out there for sure..

C

 

[Cliptin]

I can certainly understand the dislike of the income tax. You look at your paycheck and see that there are a bunch of zeros (relative to income) in that column called taxes. After a while there is a disincintive to work hard and make anymore money. "You work hard. You earn more money. We will give it someone who needs it."

With a consumption tax, the price+tax is figured into the personal budget; and while the aquisition cost is higher there is still incintive to earn the money to meet the cost.

I certainly dislike the problem of the poor being taxed heavily on a percent of income basis though.

 

[Clocker]

Wow...I am staring to sound like I have 'issues' .

It's getting interesting in here. It is nice to be out of school for a few weeks in between semesters. THe School-work thing can start to suck!

C

 

[Handruin]

I think a consumption tax would piss me off. I think either way I get screwed, I just forget that I'm getting taxed on my income and live with it. It's much worse in other countries, I think Ireland is 50% or something crazy. Maybe even france is very high.

I think compared to other countries, the income tax may be lower, so I don't feel so bad. The unsettling part is that I have no clue where my the tax money goes. Part of my salary paid for a $1 billion dollar bomber for all I know.

 

[James]

When your top marginal tax rate is 48% and you also have a 10% sales tax on everything you buy, come back and see me.

I'm not sure about the tax code in Australia but I'm fairly certain that a consumption based tax in the US would do nothing more than simplify the system rather than add complexity.

Yes, the GST in Australia was supposed to simplify the tax system too, but it didn't. Even if it did, it's irrelevant - the issue here is creating a tax system that is as fair and equitable as possible. To my way of thinking that means making people's tax burden proportional to their income.

Why should a person making a good living pay more taxes (on a % basis) than a person who is making less? Just because they are able? JUst because some (not all, of course) choose to be laxy free-loaders while they collect state/federal assistance? IMO, no. There should be no penalty for working hard and making a good living.

If you don't understand why, I'm not going to be able to convince you. Please think carefully about the paragraph you wrote above.

 

[Clocker]

If our taxes were spent wisely and there wasn't so much BS and abuse in our governments, I feel that a suitable flat rate for all could be determined. It's no secret there is a lot of waste out there.

Nonetheless, why is it that you feel it is so necessary for people making a decent living should pay more on a % basis?

Also, how would you determine who is rich and who is poor? Where do you draw the line?

C

 

[jtr1962]

A consumption tax(sales tax) instead of an income tax is a good idea, and would receive popular support if:

1)It was at most 10%, not the 40% you mentioned, since that would create less incentive to evade it. Combined local and state sales taxes may not exceed a total of 5%, so at most you will pay 15% on purchases.

2)It only applied to the types of goods subject to sales tax now, and not to food, rent, medical care, housing purchases. This pretty much eliminates that argument that such a tax would hit hardest on the poor since all of their income is spent on such essentials, and thus they would pay almost no taxes.

3)Besides eliminating the income tax(federal, state, local), we also eliminate any other involuntary paycheck deductions, such as Social Security tax(make the system voluntary and/or privatized) and union dues(again make membership voluntary). This will mean that a person will take home 100% of their paycheck, and furthermore employers would save a bundle on bookkeeping and accountants. There would also no longer be any reason for the government to know your income. Frankly, that reason alone would make many people support this idea.

Our current tax system is far too complex, expecially as regards corporate tax. The new system would put the current army of accountants and tax lawyers out of business and let them use their skills for something more economically productive. Any taxes on trade, which is what a consumption tax is, have a built-in limit on how much revenue they can provide. Set the tax too high, trade goes down and so do revenues. Set it too low, and again revenues go down. The government will thus have a built in limit on how much it can spend in the future, and would have to spend it more wisely.

Income taxes are inherently evil since they gave governments the revenue they needed to grow big, unwieldy, and oppressive. It was with good reason that the US Constitution forbid direct, or capitulation, taxes. In their wisdom, the founding fathers saw that government would only remain small if it's revenue stream were inherently limited. It's a sad thing that now not only the US, but nearly all developed nations, consider an income tax as acceptable. It is even more disturbing that nobody here seems to consider marginal rates of even 15%, let alone 30% or 48%, to be outrageous. Our politicians spend our money like water, giving the so-called needy just enough "benefits" to keep themselves in office, but all the while carefully setting up the system so that this group remains perpetually dependent. This notion of income tax as a wealth redistribution system is completely ridiculous. After $4 trillion in welfare spending in the 40 years since LBJ's Great Society(an oxymoron if there ever was one), the percentage of poor is as high as it was before. The very fact that such benefits exist means a certain percentage of the population will remain perpetually idle waiting for their handouts instead of actively doing something to pull themselves out of poverty.

 

[Pradeep]

Yes, the GST in Australia was supposed to simplify the tax system too, but it didn't. Even if it did, it's irrelevant - the issue here is creating a tax system that is as fair and equitable as possible. To my way of thinking that means making people's tax burden proportional to their income.

The GST in Australia has moved the onus of tax collection from the tax office onto the small business owners who can least afford to spare the time and effort.

And Kerry Packer still doesn't pay a single cent of tax in Australia. If you have the money and influence you can get away with it.

 

[time]

I'm not sure about the tax code in Australia but I'm fairly certain that a consumption based tax in the US would do nothing more than simplify the system rather than add complexity. The US tax code is somewhere in the range of 4000 pages long. Either way, it could not get much more complex anyway.

According to Kevin O’Rourke of Price Waterhouse Coopers, there were 1800 “fine tuning” amendments in the Australian GST’s first year, with another 1,000 in the wings. The Taxation Act increased from 3,000 pages to 8,500.

A survey conducted last year found that four out of five businesses believe Australia's "tax reform" is more complex and costly than the system it replaced. More than 70 per cent of small and medium-sized businesses surveyed had spent up to $250,000 on transferring to the new system. More than 40 per cent said they would go on spending between $10,000 and $50,000 a year on GST compliance.

Why should a person making a good living pay more taxes (on a % basis) than a person who is making less? Just because they are able?

Well, if taxpayers were not able to pay, the whole exercise would be rather pointless, wouldn't it? There's nothing new about concentrating your tax gathering efforts on those who can best afford it. That's simple common sense.

If I can't have a consumption tax, I want a flat tax.

See above. The key is so-called disposable income, that is, what the taxpayer can afford to cough up after paying for food and shelter (and myriad other things to stay on the treadmill in our modern society, like transport and other expenses necessary to earn an income in the first place).

You don't seem to understand that your income ultimately comes from the society you live in. Your employer is effectively a middle man. People tolerate others reaping rewards because they have aspirations for themselves or their children. And sometimes, but not very often, because they recognize the significance of someone's contribution.

A "flat" tax would place a significant percentage of the population in economic jeopardy, with no recourse but to break the law. Western society has already been through this in Britain during the Industrial Revolution. Do you really think it is a good idea to foment resentment in your fellow citizens?

 

[Clocker]

Good points, time. Thanks for your input.

Perhaps my real beef is with the fact that we have a bunch of incompetant fools in government administering these programs that a 'supposed' to be a reinvestment in the community. How many of my tax dollars are going to waste?

I'll change my position a bit...I'm now willing to pay a little more in taxes if those dollars are spent wisely. Perhaps the comments about tax dollars being spent locally is the best alternative.

BTW: If we were anywhere else but here, this thread would probably already have degenerated into a shouting match with personal insults galore. Taxes is always a passionate issue with those willing to discuss them. Great job on keeping this civil! It's just one more thing that makes SF great!

C

 

[Cliptin]

I'll change my position a bit...I'm now willing to pay a little more in taxes if those dollars are spent wisely. Perhaps the comments about tax dollars being spent locally is the best alternative.

When those dollars stay close to home it is easier to keep an eye on them as well. What is difficult about this approach is that, like countries, some of the bigger states with more natural resources have an advantage over the smaller and in general, the poorer states. The old adage money makes money applies here.

OTOH, with more local control of money, like education dollars, the state could key the education to needed jobs in various industries.

 

[CougTek]

I have again been deprived of internet access since yesterday's evening when I was writing a reply to this thread, around 11:15pm Eastern Time. Copy/paste my reply of yesterday would be vain as it would be outdated in the current state of the discussion. I hate Videotron's union employees.

The idea of JTR of only taxing up to 15% under a consumption taxe is flawed for several reasons. First of, the government (yours, especially) wouldn't be able to work with so few revenue (compared to what they currently are). And the main reason why there are as many poor people as before while the state's revenue have increased is more due to the fact that most of these additional $$ have either been spent elsewhere than in social solutions and when they've been, there hasn't been enough follow up to insure their success. That's one of the main disadvantage of changing leadership frequently (max 8 years in the States, with polls every 4 years -> polls = shuffle of priorities), there's no constance or interest to devote a lot of ressources to support the plans of the previous administration (be they good or bad) because for the leaders, it isn't worthwhile politically.

Anyway, I wrote it above : more money earned doesn't equal more money spent. The benefits for the state at large and for the economy wouldn't be what you guys seem to believe.

 

[jtr1962]

The idea of JTR of only taxing up to 15% under a consumption taxe is flawed for several reasons. First of, the government (yours, especially) wouldn't be able to work with so few revenue (compared to what they currently are). And the main reason why there are as many poor people as before while the state's revenue have increased is more due to the fact that most of these additional $$ have either been spent elsewhere than in social solutions and when they've been, there hasn't been enough follow up to insure their success.

The whole point of a consumption tax is that it would permanently reduce revenue and force government to keep small, and that is why I'm in favor of it. I want to get rid of big government permanently. Putting aside the issue of welfare spending, why does the US need to spend as much on defense as the next nine or ten nations combined? Maybe if we changed our foreign policy so that everyone in the world doesn't hate us, we could get by with one-tenth of that. Do that, and get government completely out of the social welfare business and I have no doubt we can get by on what the consumption tax brings in. Remember the US existed for over 150 years with no income tax.

As to the welfare spending, yes, you are correct that most of it goes to social service providers, lawyers, and landlords instead of the poor, and that is why I'm against it. If we truly wanted to help the poor, then we should start with making sure everyone gets a good education. That would do more good than spending the money later on teenage mothers. When a person applies for welfare, every effort should be made to find them a job first, and also see if they have relatives they can stay with if they are homeless(no sense giving taxpayer money to an already rich landlord for an exorbitant rent). However, we both know the system doesn't work like this. If it really helped people, I would be all in favor of it. The best way is what was mentioned here by some people- namely to have those in the community help. Since they are close to the problem, they can better identify those truly in need and effect a viable solution. In the current system, a person in need is just another number, and that is why it doesn't work. I would say an effective solution to poverty requires community involvement more than large sums of money.

BTW, a fair number of people on welfare are frauds. In fact, everyone I knew of personally on welfare was working an off-the-books job as well, so they were cheating twice. My brother used to work in a pharmacy, and he frequently saw people who used Medicaid drive away in late model cars. There is something seriously wrong with that picture. And in a subject close to your heart, Russian Jews in NYC are given welfare benefits with no questions asked, even though they aren't citizens and many have skills that should enable them to find employment. Frankly, things like this make my blood boil. :x

 

[Explorer]

Taxis? I like the yellow ones the most.

 

[Fushigi]

The problem with welfare systems in the US is that they have never really offered any encouragement for the recipient to improve their situation. A few years ago a relative of mine was recieving support totalling $280/month (mostly in food stamps) to supplement her job that paid $6.40 an hour. She is divorced, raising two children, and was attending college when she could afford to. She could not take a job that paid a little more than $6.50 an hour, or even accept a modest raise, as when she hit $6.50 an hour the $280/month benefit would be reduced to $0. No sliding scale. To actually get off of welfare, she would have to move from $6.40 to something over $8 an hour just to make up for the assistance. Then even more than that to actually get ahead. That's not easy in a small town that doesn't offer many decent-wage jobs.

A sliding scale to get off of welfare would actually encourage people to improve their situation, not discourage it. Say, for every $0.25/hour raise you get, you lose somewhere from $0.05 to $0.10 per hour in effective benefits. Then, people would actually still see an increase in take-home pay and would generally want to improve their situation and move off of welfare.

The approach adopted over the past few years of only providing assistance for up to 5 years is a crock and will do more harm than good. It is nothing more than a way for states to reduce their welfare roles without actually helping the people who need the assistance. The long-term effect has yet to be realized but it will not be good for society unless the people who recieve benefits are also re-educated or given other job training that can actually be useful in today's business climate.

...

On taxes, I don't like them.

But a government cannot survive without a source of funding so they are necessary. I think the main reform we need is a major simplification of the existing structure. Eliminate most deductions but keep the sliding scale that taxes higher incomes at a higher rate. Eliminate the marriage penalty. Eliminate mortgage interest deductions, medical deductions, and most other items.

Keep consumption taxes but restrict them to non-food, non-shelter items. Tax entertainment, eating at restaraunts, & sins at higher rates. But the total consumption tax for anything should not exceed 10%.

...

Speaking of entertainment, we went to see Signs last night. $9 a ticket each. Any more expensive and I will quit going to movie theaters altogether and just buy the DVD releases, which will be cheaper.

- Fushigi

 

[CougTek]

Speaking of entertainment, we went to see Signs last night. $9 a ticket each. Any more expensive and I will quit going to movie theaters altogether and just buy the DVD releases, which will be cheaper.

I went to watch it too a few weeks ago (the first it came out) and it only cost me 6.50$...CDN And that's the regular price (on Tuesday and Wednesday) at most movie theaters, not just some lowly stereo sound ones.

 

[Handruin]

That's a good point, when the ticket prices start climbing over $9, it's better to either rent it or buy it when it comes out. If we make an effort to stop going to the movies, perhaps it will send a message and hopefully drive the costs down.

Most movies these days aren't worth the money they charge, I've seen few movies in the past year that were worth the money.

 

[P5-133XL]

Sorry to disagree but everyone seems to have the wrong idea about Welfare. The point is not to support or help the poor; It is to help and support the children of the poor. Children have no control concerning their living standards and the poor parents may not be willing/able to supply basic needs like food, and housing. Taking the children away and supplying necessities damages the children: They need parents. The alternative is to supply the parents with resources to supply those needs. Unfortunately some people do not have proper priorities or ethics and the children still suffer and the government is cheated. If someone here has a better way to help the children in a situation like this, I'm sure the US govt. would be willing to listen because the current method doesn't work very well and they are desparate to improve it. Eliminating Welfare isn't an option because that would doom a large number of children and thus harm the country in a way that is not acceptable in our society.

Next disagreement, Flat taxes, sales taxes, consumption taxes and the like are horrible to society. They are called regressive taxes because they tax those that can least afford it, the most. Regardless of where how much is taxed and what exemptions (like food and housing) these taxes tax those that can least afford the tax. This is because of the basic idea that the more money made the less is accually spent (proportionally to income) and the more money is actually saved/invested.

As an example, lets exclude anyone making less than $30,000 from actually paying tax and exclude housing, food ect. Is there anyone that believes the Bill Gates should be paying at lower tax rate than that $30,000 guy. Well he is because the vast majoriety of Bill gate's money is spent on investments and very little will be spent on living expenses while that is just the reverse for the $30,000 guy. Bill gates may spend $100 million on annual expenses out of his 10 billion income while the 30K guy if he is frugal will be spending 25K on expenses and saving 5K. The result is bill gates is being taxed on 1% of his income at the same rate as the 30K guy is being tax for 80% of his income. If you exclude housing and other stuff, the effect is to lessen but not eliminate the regressiveness.

Third disagreement, changing the taxation method will change the spending habits of the federal govt. Gimmie a break, it has been shown over the course of several hundred years and almost a trillion in debt. that the amount of money the govt. receives has little to do with how much they spend and on what. Decreasing the amount of money they get will not stop the govt. from wasting money, spending money unwisely, spending money on defense, spending money on social programs.

If you want to change what the govt. spend money on, then elect representatives with the proper priorietys that agree with your value systems and they will enact those programs that you value and not spend money on the programs that you disagree with. The Govt. you get is the Govt. you elect. If you elect unethical people you will get an unethical govt. If you elect slackers, you will get waste and inefficiency. If you elect Hawks, you will get defense spending. If you elect Caring people, you will get social programs...

 

[Cliptin]

The problem with welfare systems in the US is that they have never really offered any encouragement for the recipient to improve their situation.

Epiphany! I have heard the "improve their situation" explaination before. I had always thought it was politician speak for "earn more money". However, employees need to be recognized by either raises or ,after a while, promotions.

If the system does not allow people to get raises on the way to a promotion they will likely never get the experience needed to get into or excel in a higher level position.

It makes such common sense I don't understand why it is not like this. Administration? Unemployment works on the sliding scale.

 

[SteveC]

It makes such common sense I don't understand why it is not like this.

Because common sense and government don't go together. :wink:

Steve

 

[jtr1962]

Sorry to disagree but everyone seems to have the wrong idea about Welfare. The point is not to support or help the poor; It is to help and support the children of the poor.
....
If someone here has a better way to help the children in a situation like this, I'm sure the US govt. would be willing to listen because the current method doesn't work very well and they are desparate to improve it.

I think everyone here is aware of that. The problem is that, despite welfare, the children of the poor are not given the tools to break the cycle of poverty, and thus parents on welfare frequently leads to the children being on welfare. To an extent, the system is set up this way(to encourage dependency) for the sake of the labor unions who run the social programs, and the politicians who use them to maintain a captive voting block. As I said before, you want to improve the standard of living of people, give them a good free education, up to and including college(if they are college material) or trade school(if they aren't).

A further problem is one of people becoming parents who lack the education/motivation to support their children. An idea Mercutio has long espoused is parent licensing, and here I must agree. Parenting is the most important job anyone can do, and I would say the majority of people are not fit to be parents because they are either emotionally immature, or lack the ability to earn enough money, or both. A psychological test combined with a means test would be used to determine if someone who wanted to have children would be permitted to do so. Part of the means test would include a certain amount of savings to cover emergencies like unemployment. Sure this idea is controversial, but I feel it is the only way we as a society will stop the production of dsyfunctional parents. Not every dysfunctional parent ends up on welfare, but most of them end up raising children who grow up to be dysfunctional adults whom I must deal with every day. All one needs to do is look at how many adults lead lives that jump from crisis to crisis(mostly of their own making) to realize we as a nation have failed miserably at bringing up our children. Do all these things I suggest, and while you may still need welfare, it will only be very rarely when a person is involuntarily unemployed for a very long time and their savings have run out. And if maybe 0.01% if the population is on welfare at any given time, it will be a non-issue with voters.

Next disagreement, Flat taxes, sales taxes, consumption taxes and the like are horrible to society. They are called regressive taxes because they tax those that can least afford it, the most. Regardless of where how much is taxed and what exemptions (like food and housing) these taxes tax those that can least afford the tax. This is because of the basic idea that the more money made the less is accually spent (proportionally to income) and the more money is actually saved/invested.

I agree regressive taxes are horrible, but isn't Social Security the most regressive tax going, and doubly regressive if you happen to be self-employed and must pay 15.3% of your income from the first dollar you earn? In the latter case, you can file as a S-corporation and avoid it, but then you're still paying fees every year to the government for your S-corporation, and those fees are fixed, even if you only earn $10 that year. And I don't care if theoretically you'll get some of your Social Security taxes back. This is at best a tenuous assumption since you may die before collecting, the government will not be able to pay full benefits after 2037, the rate of return even assuming full benefits is -2%, and if the US governnment collapses, you'll get nothing. I consider the last possibility almost a given within 25 years for a variety of reasons, but that's too off-topic so let's return to the discussion at hand. Most lower and middle class people spend the bulk of their income on food and housing, and perhaps only spend a few thousand annually on things that would be subject to a consumption tax. Assuming a rate of 15%, those people might pay $500 to $1000 in total tax, whereas now a person making $25,000 annually pays $1912.50 in Social Security tax alone. Hardly seems like a tax increase to me, and if they wish to bank all of what they would spend on non-necessities, they can pretty much avoid paying taxes altogether. Remember I said the consumption tax would be accompanied by an elimination of all payroll deductions, including Social Security, which would be completely replaced with a system of private accounts. I suggest as a way of making the wealthy pay a bit more under the new system we have a higher consumption tax rate for luxury items which only the rich could afford. I'm still not really sold on the idea that one's tax burden should be proportional to one's income, especially when the upper class by and large use very few services that the government offers. From each according to his abilites, to each according to his needs is the motto of socialism, not capitalism. Just for the record, I'm not too keen on capitalism either since it apparently increases the disparity between the haves and have nots, but I hate socialism even more. I can't think of a worse system. Socialism basically encourages stagnation since there is no reward(in fact quite the opposite) for putting forth extra effort, and you'll get what you're "entitled to" under the system whether you do your job diligently or not.

One thing that bothers me about an income tax is the fact that the government knows my income, and this alone is a good enough reason to abolish income taxes worldwide. I'm surprised that most people apparently aren't bothered by this, or are not bothered enough by it to do something about it. Add to that the fact that calculating, collecting, and enforcing an income tax is an expensive nightmare, and you have no valid reasons for one to exist. A consumption tax is very easily calculated-either the good is exempt or it isn't. If it isn't, the tax is collected, and added to the running total in the store's main computer. Periodically, you clear this running total and mail a check in that amount to the government. Very simple, no accountants, no incentive for businesses to evade it since the customer pays, not them. Perhaps make the computer system report the total to the government periodically to aid enforcement. Other than that, pretty much a hands-off system much better than the mess we have now. And the current army of accountants will be able to contribute their talents to something more productive to the economy than filling out tax forms.

Third disagreement, changing the taxation method will change the spending habits of the federal govt. Gimmie a break, it has been shown over the course of several hundred years and almost a trillion in debt. that the amount of money the govt. receives has little to do with how much they spend and on what. Decreasing the amount of money they get will not stop the govt. from wasting money, spending money unwisely, spending money on defense, spending money on social programs.

For starters, we need a balanced budget amendment. There is no reason for the government to borrow. It sets a very bad example for starters, and it increases the tax burden. Over $200 billion is spent each year just on interest on the national debt, which incidentally is over $6 teradollars, not one. That being done, if there is less money coming in, they will have to spend less, and their constituents(i.e. us) will have to wean themselves from government programs. It's not just welfare that bothers many Americans. There is corporate welfare, farm subsidies(which make the cost of food higher), excessive defense spending, excessive justice department spending, etc. A perfect example is the so-called war on drugs. Since people are obviously hell bent on taking this garbage, we might as well legalize it and tax it, same as with cigarettes, which incidentally kill more people each year than hard drugs. While this is the most glaring example, the fact is that there exist too many laws like it designed to enforce morality while not really doing anything for pubic safety. America has a greater percentage of its population in jail than any other country. I suggest it is because there are too many silly, pointless laws, not because our population is any worse than any other country. It is a result of kneejerk politicians who make something illegal the minute a small percentage of the population doing it causes harm, even if everyone else does it safely. We need politicians who will repeal old laws faster than they make new ones. It is many of these laws, and the "mandatory" spending required by them, that have resulted in bloated government, not better government. Some of these laws are so transparently designed to serve special interests that it makes me sick.

BTW, part of the problem with our system is that the process of getting elected to office inherently drives many people who would do the most good away. I'm sure the country is full of such people who would be great if they were in office, but they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting there under the current system. Once you're elected to office here, unless you're independently wealthy, you likely owe big time to a bunch of special interests, and the current system just seems to attract self-serving, intellectually challenged, opportunistic jerks. Clearly the process has to change, and sometimes I think just randomly picking people from the general population for office couldn't be any worse. And don't underestimate the power of revolution. When all else fails and you have a big, bloated government, revolt, sweep it away, and start fresh. And repeat every hundred years just so people never get too comfortable with the current system.

 

[P5-133XL]

To everyone, I appologise for the size of this post but it became necessary if I was to keep the appropiate quotes with thier answers.

Sorry to disagree but everyone seems to have the wrong idea about Welfare. The point is not to support or help the poor; it is to help and support the children of the poor.

I think everyone here is aware of that. The problem is that, despite welfare, the children of the poor are not given the tools to break the cycle of poverty, and thus parents on welfare frequently leads to the children being on welfare. To an extent, the system is set up this way(to encourage dependency) for the sake of the labor unions who run the social programs, and the politicians who use them to maintain a captive voting block. As I said before, you want to improve the standard of living of people, give them a good free education, up to and including college(if they are college material) or trade school(if they aren't).

If you are aware of what the purpose of Welfare is then quit trying to expand the program beyond its mandate. Welfare is not there to break the cycle of poverty. It is to give “Children” the basic necessities of life like food, and shelter until they are adults and responsible for their own lives.

I would suggest required daycare where the govt. picks up and delivers the children with food( At least one full meal) and medical support while in the Govt's custody. Further, if the parents cannot supply housing, the Govt. supplies housing. Please note, there is nothing going towards the parents, rather everything is going towards the children. There is no (little) money going to support the parents and thus little dependency on welfare checks. Stuff like education and support services to help the parents should be totally separate from welfare designed to provide a minimal standard of living to the children. The general goal is to keep it simple and do one task at a time (support the children). If it is desired to break the cycle of poverty – use different program(s) like college loans/grants

A further problem is one of people becoming parents who lack the education/motivation to support their children. An idea Mercutio has long espoused is parent licensing, and here I must agree. Parenting is the most important job anyone can do, and I would say the majority of people are not fit to be parents because they are either emotionally immature, or lack the ability to earn enough money, or both. A psychological test combined with a means test would be used to determine if someone who wanted to have children would be permitted to do so. Part of the means test would include a certain amount of savings to cover emergencies like unemployment. Sure this idea is controversial, but I feel it is the only way we as a society will stop the production of dysfunctional parents. Not every dysfunctional parent ends up on welfare, but most of them end up raising children who grow up to be dysfunctional adults whom I must deal with every day. All one needs to do is look at how many adults lead lives that jump from crisis to crisis(mostly of their own making) to realize we as a nation have failed miserably at bringing up our children. Do all these things I suggest, and while you may still need welfare, it will only be very rarely when a person is involuntarily unemployed for a very long time and their savings have run out. And if maybe 0.01% if the population is on welfare at any given time, it will be a non-issue with voters.

Next, comes the ridiculousness of licensing parents. What are you going to do force reversible birth control on every child before they can have children and after the license change their reproductive status. Another alternative is to kill any unlicensed births or confiscate the children of unlicensed parents. without such extreme measures, one is not going to be able to stop unlicensed irresponsible people from having children. People will have Sex and people will have children and no action that is socially acceptable will stop that. There is nothing wrong with parent training but it won't stop irresponsible people from having children.

Next disagreement, Flat taxes, sales taxes, consumption taxes and the like are horrible to society. They are called regressive taxes because they tax those that can least afford it, the most. Regardless of where how much is taxed and what exemptions (like food and housing) these taxes tax those that can least afford the tax. This is because of the basic idea that the more money made the less is actually spent (proportionally to income) and the more money is actually saved/invested.

agree regressive taxes are horrible, but isn't Social Security the most regressive tax going, and doubly regressive if you happen to be self-employed and must pay 15.3% of your income from the first dollar you earn? In the latter case, you can file as a S-corporation and avoid it, but then you're still paying fees every year to the government for your S-corporation, and those fees are fixed, even if you only earn $10 that year. And I don't care if theoretically you'll get some of your Social Security taxes back. This is at best a tenuous assumption since you may die before collecting, the government will not be able to pay full benefits after 2037, the rate of return even assuming full benefits is -2%, and if the US government collapses, you'll get nothing. I consider the last possibility almost a given within 25 years for a variety of reasons, but that's too off-topic so let's return to the discussion at hand. Most lower and middle class people spend the bulk of their income on food and housing, and perhaps only spend a few thousand annually on things that would be subject to a consumption tax. Assuming a rate of 15%, those people might pay $500 to $1000 in total tax, whereas now a person making $25,000 annually pays $1912.50 in Social Security tax alone. Hardly seems like a tax increase to me, and if they wish to bank all of what they would spend on non-necessities, they can pretty much avoid paying taxes altogether. Remember I said the consumption tax would be accompanied by an elimination of all payroll deductions, including Social Security, which would be completely replaced with a system of private accounts. I suggest as a way of making the wealthy pay a bit more under the new system we have a higher consumption tax rate for luxury items which only the rich could afford. I'm still not really sold on the idea that one's tax burden should be proportional to one's income, especially when the upper class by and large use very few services that the government offers. From each according to his abilites, to each according to his needs is the motto of socialism, not capitalism. Just for the record, I'm not too keen on capitalism either since it apparently increases the disparity between the haves and have nots, but I hate socialism even more. I can't think of a worse system. Socialism basically encourages stagnation since there is no reward(in fact quite the opposite) for putting forth extra effort, and you'll get what you're "entitled to" under the system whether you do your job diligently or not.

One thing that bothers me about an income tax is the fact that the government knows my income, and this alone is a good enough reason to abolish income taxes worldwide. I'm surprised that most people apparently aren't bothered by this, or are not bothered enough by it to do something about it. Add to that the fact that calculating, collecting, and enforcing an income tax is an expensive nightmare, and you have no valid reasons for one to exist. A consumption tax is very easily calculated-either the good is exempt or it isn't. If it isn't, the tax is collected, and added to the running total in the store's main computer. Periodically, you clear this running total and mail a check in that amount to the government. Very simple, no accountants, no incentive for businesses to evade it since the customer pays, not them. Perhaps make the computer system report the total to the government periodically to aid enforcement. Other than that, pretty much a hands-off system much better than the mess we have now. And the current army of accountants will be able to contribute their talents to something more productive to the economy than filling out tax forms.

If you agree that regressive taxes are horrible then why are you promoting a consumption tax in preference to another non regressive tax such as capital gains taxes or luxury taxes: Consumption tax is just another regressive tax. Just because it is easy to calculate and easy to enforce doesn't make it good. I think you have another agenda rather than tax fairness; Specificly privacy. I don't know why you don't want personal tax acountablity but it is obvious you don't feel that the Govt knowing your income is acceptable. Have you been previously damaged in some way by this? Are you trying to hide something? What's wrong here?

Social Security isn't a regressive tax, it is a user tax. You are taxed for the services you are expected to receive. I think it is wrong for the program not to have been vested but I don't think the country could afford to do that and still give retirement money to those that had not paid in when it was started. It is sad that the age-demographics are changing to the point that the program may self-destruct. It is sad that some people that die early don't receive benefits that they paid for but that is the flaw of the program not being vested.

For those that don't know what vested means: it means that all the money you put into the retirement is yours and not paid to anyone else. The current method is that the amount you put into the retirement is paid out to those that are currently receiving benefits and any excess is stored. The flaw of the current method is that if the amount being received from taxes does not meet the current benefits then the excess is used untill there is no more money and the program dies (unless the Govt. steps in and supports it).

Third disagreement, changing the taxation method will change the spending habits of the federal govt. Gimmie a break, it has been shown over the course of several hundred years and almost a trillion in debt. that the amount of money the govt. receives has little to do with how much they spend and on what. Decreasing the amount of money they get will not stop the govt. from wasting money, spending money unwisely, spending money on defense, spending money on social programs.

For starters, we need a balanced budget amendment. There is no reason for the government to borrow. It sets a very bad example for starters, and it increases the tax burden. Over $200 billion is spent each year just on interest on the national debt, which incidentally is over $6 teradollars, not one. That being done, if there is less money coming in, they will have to spend less, and their constituents(i.e. us) will have to wean themselves from government programs. It's not just welfare that bothers many Americans. There is corporate welfare, farm subsidies(which make the cost of food higher), excessive defense spending, excessive justice department spending, etc. A perfect example is the so-called war on drugs. Since people are obviously hell bent on taking this garbage, we might as well legalize it and tax it, same as with cigarettes, which incidentally kill more people each year than hard drugs. While this is the most glaring example, the fact is that there exist too many laws like it designed to enforce morality while not really doing anything for pubic safety. America has a greater percentage of its population in jail than any other country. I suggest it is because there are too many silly, pointless laws, not because our population is any worse than any other country. It is a result of kneejerk politicians who make something illegal the minute a small percentage of the population doing it causes harm, even if everyone else does it safely. We need politicians who will repeal old laws faster than they make new ones. It is many of these laws, and the "mandatory" spending required by them, that have resulted in bloated government, not better government. Some of these laws are so transparently designed to serve special interests that it makes me sick.

BTW, part of the problem with our system is that the process of getting elected to office inherently drives many people who would do the most good away. I'm sure the country is full of such people who would be great if they were in office, but they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting there under the current system. Once you're elected to office here, unless you're independently wealthy, you likely owe big time to a bunch of special interests, and the current system just seems to attract self-serving, intellectually challenged, opportunistic jerks. Clearly the process has to change, and sometimes I think just randomly picking people from the general population for office couldn't be any worse. And don't underestimate the power of revolution. When all else fails and you have a big, bloated government, revolt, sweep it away, and start fresh. And repeat every hundred years just so people never get too comfortable with the current system.

I would have no problem with a balanced budget amendment with caveats (depression and War). The only known method of countering a countrywide depression is for the Govt. to spend their way out. The theory is that when out, you will pay back the dept that the Govt. created and that is not the way it has ever worked. To deal with that one caveat I think the balanced budget needs to be 4-5 years in size (or maybe even longer) after a depression has occurred. One does not want to recreate a depression by stopping all Govt. spending to pay off the debt that was created to get out of a depression. Give some time to pay off that type of debt. With War, lesser priorities like balanced budgets give way to survival.

The election laws are constantly being revised. The issues are very complex and interweave the very fabric of our society and thus, me being a relatively simple man I don’t have good solutions. I don't have a solution to the conflict of private vs. public interests; there has to be a balance and further very often they are actually aligned rather than conflicting and that is why lobbyists have their uses. Currently I depend on the judgment of the polition to create the balance. I don't really have a solution to polition accountability other than elect the correct people in the first place and create consequences for unethical behavior. Has anyone ever been successfully sued for promising one thing during the election and behaving exactly the opposite once elected? Seems like fraud to me. I do have a solution to the cost of elections and that is to pay for them exclusively with public money: No hard money from anyone, including self. A primitive form of this is done for presidential elections but I think it should be expanded to all federal elections. The point is to make the election more fair and less influenced by money and special interests. However, I don't have a solution that prevents soft money from being used. Soft money is where an independent person does his or her own publicity campaign with no association to the actual candidate; I don't see how one can stop freedom of speech and still keep the US as a good place to be. These are just a few of the issues involving fair elections that exist.

Yes, randomly picking people would be far worse than the current system: The average Joe/Jane would make an exceedingly poor polition. It is an exceedingly rare man that is principled enough, selfless enough, tough enough, determined, intelligent, and motivated, with all the proper values to represent the majority, ...

Revolution that junks everything that already exists just for the sake of change is insane. You wouldn’t do that to yourself so why force change of everything on everyone simultaneously.

I dare you to give all your money away, quit your job, and abandon all friends and acquaintances and start-over in a new country with nothing. That is what a revolution is like and lives like countries are built-up over time and are not easily recreated from scratch.

 

[P5-133XL]

Reading what I just posted I noticed an error the 3rd P5-133XL quote is a jtr-1962 quote. "agree regressive taxes are horible..." It ends in the middle with "you do your job diligently, or not". After that is my reply (Should not be quoted) that starts "If you agree that ..." and ends at "(Unless the Govt. steps in and supports it)".

If the moderators want to modify the post to match then that is fine with me and if not there is this post to help explain.

 

[jtr1962]

P5-133XL,

Thanks for your input on this topic. Interesting discussion. I just have a few minor points to address here:

I would suggest required daycare where the govt. picks up and delivers the children with food( At least one full meal) and medical support while in the Govt's custody. Further, if the parents cannot supply housing, the Govt. supplies housing. Please note, there is nothing going towards the parents, rather everything is going towards the children. There is no (little) money going to support the parents and thus little dependency on welfare checks. Stuff like education and support services to help the parents should be totally separate from welfare designed to provide a minimal standard of living to the children. The general goal is to keep it simple and do one task at a time (support the children). If it is desired to break the cycle of poverty – use different program(s) like college loans/grants

Yes, this is a good idea as well. I didn't suggest it because you mentioned that separating the children from their parents would be destructive. Just based on some general observations of children with parents on welfare for a long time, I tend to think that taking the children out of such an environment would be more beneficial than harmful, and perhaps ultimately placing them in some sort of foster care. What you suggest is a good idea for those who need help for a short time. Long term, if a parent cannot support their children due to substance abuse, lack of education, laziness, whatever, the chidren should be taken away and placed in foster care(or found permanent homes). Sure, it's disruptive to them in the short term, but beneficial in the long term.

I see what you're trying to do-separate welfare from other programs so that it's goal is simply feeding and housing chidren. This is fine. Maybe it would be better if every new program didn't try to be everything to everybody.

Next, comes the ridiculousness of licensing parents. What are you going to do force reversible birth control on every child before they can have children and after the license change their reproductive status. Another alternative is to kill any unlicensed births or confiscate the children of unlicensed parents. without such extreme measures, one is not going to be able to stop unlicensed irresponsible people from having children. People will have Sex and people will have children and no action that is socially acceptable will stop that. There is nothing wrong with parent training but it won't stop irresponsible people from having children.

Yes, you mentioned the hardest part of actually implementing my idea. China has had some success forcing one parent per child mainly through forced abortions, though I'm not sure how well that would go over in the US. I would actually favor some sort of reversible birth control if the technology existed to implement it easily, but for now no such thing exists. At the very least, we should have mandatory parent training, and have government do whatever it can to discourage the poor from reproducing.

If you agree that regressive taxes are horrible then why are you promoting a consumption tax in preference to another non regressive tax such as capital gains taxes or luxury taxes: Consumption tax is just another regressive tax. Just because it is easy to calculate and easy to enforce doesn't make it good.

The luxury tax is a good idea as well. I also favor a $5 or so per gallon gas tax to discourage use of fossil fuels. I just don't want an income tax, and I would only favor a capital gains tax if the first $25,000 or so in capital gains annually was exempt so that the middle class investor doesn't get screwed but the rich pay. Putting aside the privacy issues, an income tax is a nightmare to calculate. The consumption tax is not as regressive as it appears once you exempt enough basic necessities.

One thing I just thought of favoring an elimination of income taxes is that everyone would get a big raise. Once an employer no longer has to pay additional taxes on payroll such as the matching Social Security contribution, unemployment tax, disability tax, etc., that money can be given directly to the employee, and should be. As an example, the last time I worked a regular job I was making $10.94/hour, or $437.60 weekly. Not a large salary, even ten years ago, yet I had about $100 per week taken out, or almost 25%. Hardly fair, and very regressive. Anyway, my total cost to the employer was about $650 per week with all the matching mandatory taxes and a very poor health insurance plan which I never used. I would have been far better off just getting the $650 per week, investing part for retirement, investing another part to pay for any future medical needs, etc. So under my proposal, most people would see their take-home pay double with no additional costs to employers. It would be the job of the government to inform every working person how much taxes their employer pays on behalf of them to make sure their employer didn't screw them when the changeover occurred.

I think you have another agenda rather than tax fairness; Specificly privacy. I don't know why you don't want personal tax acountablity but it is obvious you don't feel that the Govt knowing your income is acceptable. Have you been previously damaged in some way by this? Are you trying to hide something? What's wrong here?

No, I haven't been harmed by this, but I've heard nightmare stories of people getting large bills from the IRS for taxes on money they never even earned. Mistakes happen. Sometimes if you own a business and have an income less than is usual for that type of business the IRS will claim you made more while the reality might be that you just want to work three days instead of seven, or close up early. It is generally when people are self-employed that the income tax system gets really messy. And yes, the government knowing my income, or anything beyond my name, address, and citizenship status, is unacceptable to me. The more information they have, the more potential for that information to be misused. A perfect example was that I had an S-corporation until two years ago, when I dissolved it because the amount of business I had didn't justify it. I was required by the state to pick several fictitous names(I still don't know why), in addition to the official name. I never used these fictitous names in any way, yet I've received a number of mail solicitations for business credit cards and other products addressed under the fictitous names. Apparently, the government(or an unscrupulous employee) sold business names and addresses to marketers without my permission. Sure I wasn't harmed by this, but the potential exists as long as the information is out there.

Social Security isn't a regressive tax, it is a user tax. You are taxed for the services you are expected to receive. I think it is wrong for the program not to have been vested but I don't think the country could afford to do that and still give retirement money to those that had not paid in when it was started.

The operative word is expected, and given the state of the system, I don't expect to receive anything, therefore....

Now a little history. The tax rates for Social Security were set artificially low(~1%) when the system was first proposed in order to make it politically acceptable. Had there been a more viable rate proposed(~4%), the system never would have been implemented. And it was never vested due to paranoia after the stock market crash of 1929. So those were the two big mistakes made in the implementation of the system. Had it been done correctly, it would have been more a forced savings account, which is something I certainly would support. I would rather people save voluntarily, but seeing as many won't, a forced system of personal accounts is the next best thing.

I would have no problem with a balanced budget amendment with caveats (depression and War). The only known method of countering a countrywide depression is for the Govt. to spend their way out. The theory is that when out, you will pay back the dept that the Govt. created and that is not the way it has ever worked. To deal with that one caveat I think the balanced budget needs to be 4-5 years in size (or maybe even longer) after a depression has occurred. One does not want to recreate a depression by stopping all Govt. spending to pay off the debt that was created to get out of a depression. Give some time to pay off that type of debt. With War, lesser priorities like balanced budgets give way to survival.

Agreed on both points. I forgot to mention that I also think war and depression should temporarily override the balanced budget imperative for the reasons you mentioned.

Revolution that junks everything that already exists just for the sake of change is insane. You wouldn't do that to yourself so why force change of everything on everyone simultaneously.

I dare you to give all your money away, quit your job, and abandon all friends and acquaintances and start-over in a new country with nothing. That is what a revolution is like and lives like countries are built-up over time and are not easily recreated from scratch.

Revolution is a last resort, when you've tried to work within the system and failed. And I honestly feel we are coming to that point. Just to mention a few things, housing, legal, and medical expenses are out of control, and given all the special interests that benefit from the status quo it is not credible to me that we can use the system to effect change. Add to that list oil, airline, and automobile companies who are destroying the planet wholesale, yet who own the politicians lock, stock, and barrel. Again, I don't see real change coming from within the system. I would personally be willing to leave in turmoil for a while if things could be better afterwards, meaning smaller, less intrusive government, lower taxes, clear air, fewer lawyers, etc.


Looks like I did it again. I meant to keep this post fairly short, but seeing as what happens when I start writing....

Good thing I'm a slow typist, or my posts would be even longer.