If you were president of your country...

[YSSMAN]

...If I may interject a moment with a commentary on Affirmitive Action, you may find it interesting that in Michigan we will have a referendum on the 2006 Ballot to offically end affirmitive action here.

I presumably am going to vote for it, as because of it, I have been placed in a less-than-equal place to my fellow minority citizens given the fact that I am a middle-class white male.

Minorities and yell and scream all they want about the injustice that they recieve in their lives, but when I am working twice as hard as some black kid who can catch a damn football and spell "potato" of whom has a GPA of more than a point less than me gets into a college that I have been working twards for the past five years, you can bet I'd be pissed off.

Or what about when I go out looking for a job and I have a degree in business management and five years expirience working as a manager at a local retailer but I do not get the job because of a quota that has to be met for miniorities, despite the fact they are without a degree or expirience... Is that fair?

Racism is something that happens, and unfortunately for me, I'm white. The system was turned upsidedown by affirmitive action, and given that it is widely considered to be useless today, why have it? Why not have equal rights for ALL citizens with no baisis on sex or skin color? Is that not what the Civil Rights Act guarantees?

---

BTW: Event:

Some of your ideas are great (energy ones especially), but I have to respectfully dissagree with you on Iraq, the Patriot Act, Marijuanna, to some extent Abortion and Gay Marriage as well. I can't help being a conservative, but I can concede to some backtracking on things such as abortions okay up to the end of the 1st trimester, and civil unions, but thats about it.

 

[Event]

BTW: Event:

Some of your ideas are great (energy ones especially), but I have to respectfully dissagree with you on Iraq, the Patriot Act, Marijuanna, to some extent Abortion and Gay Marriage as well. I can't help being a conservative, but I can concede to some backtracking on things such as abortions okay up to the end of the 1st trimester, and civil unions, but thats about it.

Well, I forgot to add, pro choice until the 3rd trimester. After that, when the fetus is rather developed, I think is wrong. So I'm pro choice in the 1st and second trimesters, but no abortions in the third.

But about the marijuanna, don't you think that putting the money towards energy research would be worth it? We don't have nearly enough money in energy research. Putting all of the marijuanna money towards that would be a huge boost towards fusion power. Where else would be get enough funds? Other parts of the budget? I'd rather not decrease spending in defense or education. Energy research is important, but so is education and defense! Plus, all of the hippies who do smoke it can know that it is going to help save the planet, so they'll gladly pay. (If they're not against the man, which would be on their side now, since we won't be going after them for smoking)

 

[Danoff]

My ambiguous goals:
1. Pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan

DOMESTIC POLICY ONLY!!!!

2. Abolish the Patriot Act

Elaborate. Why? What impact would that have?

3. Legalize and heavily tax Marijuanna and put an even heavier Tax on Tobacco and put the revenues towards Alternative Energy Research.

Why should pot or tobacco be taxed higher than other goods?

4. Use more domestic Oil to aid gas prices

You mean drilling? You do realize eventually we'll run out. The only way to convince people to move to alternatives is to allow the prices to stay high.

5. Give goverment subsidies to Gas Stations who supply biodeisel and other alternative fuels

Why do they deserve government funds above others? Allow the high gas prices that currently exist to push people to alternatives.

6. Legalize Gay Marraige, I'd like to get an amendment banning the descrimination of sex in couples in all 50 states, but seeing how close the vote was in banning it, I don't think it would pass...

Can it be a states' issue?

7. No Affirmative Action! Hate crimes would only be tried as such if there was substancial evidence that the person committed the crime wholly due to race

What makes a hate crime worse than a regular crime?

but favoring one minority is discrimination and reverse racism and I am whole-heartedly against that.

No it's not reverse racism. It's just plain racism.

 

[Lee]

If I was the PM I would:

1. Demolish the Monarcy, we don't really need a Royal Family, what have they done to deserve the wealth they have? They have no talents, they haven't really done too much for the country (Ok so maybe the Queen has alot to do with the commonwealth, someone can take over it).

2. Sort out Immigration, it's starting to become a poblem for us, I'd propose a points system that's used in countries such as Canada. That way we can wittle out the people who would serve no decent use to society, such as people who would end up working at Fish and chip shops.

3. Decrease funding to the NHS, it's all going to waste there, wages do not need to rise any further I believe. I can see the money saved spent on much more needy areas such as the police or public transport.

4. Turn my leadership into a dictatorship of sorts but not takign away civil rights of the public, therefore banning all oppisition parties so the country will not have to endure different views on how the country is led. Instead I'd give the public votes on important areas of concern such as how to deal with abusive youths or to introduce certain laws.

5. Unite Wales and Scotland to become the United States of Britain.

 

[Event]

DOMESTIC POLICY ONLY!!!!

I just put it there, I wasn't pushing it, no one but you commented on it. And I didn't that clause in the first post, but nothing came of it. Sorry for making you use your caps lock.

I'll be honest, I didn't even read the first post. I didn't read anyone elses. I wanted to not be influenced subconsciously by anyone else.

Elaborate. Why? What impact would that have?

I don't like the fact that Bush essentially has unlimited power if he thinks what he does is for the good of the nation. I think eliminating it might bring back some trust from the american people of the government.

Why should pot or tobacco be taxed higher than other goods?

The higher taxes would help win over politicians so I could get enough votes. Besides, they are hazardous to your health, and this would discourage some from buying them. I'm not a libertarian, I think the goverment should watch out for people to an extent.

You mean drilling? You do realize eventually we'll run out. The only way to convince people to move to alternatives is to allow the prices to stay high.

We have oil reserves, and lots of them. We're pretty much using all forgein Oils now if I recall correctly. Don't quote me on that. I heard somewhere that we could reduce gas prices by 50 cents or more if we use our oil in addition to forgein oil. We're pretty much stockpiling now. This would provide some immediate release, allowing more time for people to start switching to biodiesel or other alternative fuels.

Why do they deserve government funds above others? Allow the high gas prices that currently exist to push people to alternatives.

Many gas stations that offer alternative fuels are not profitable. If the goverment helps them out a little, it would be more appetizing for gas stations to start stocking alterantive fuels, which would bring the price down. If people know that fuels like biodeisel or ethanol are readily available, they would be more willing to make the switch. My dad was seriously considering a car that would run on biodeisel but theres like 1 gas station in a 10 mile radius that stocks it.

Can it be a states' issue?

Isn't it already a states issue? And how many states can gay people get married in? Isn't it only California? I don't think that the goverment can restrict who can or can't get married. I can see it being up to the churches, that would be more logical.

What makes a hate crime worse than a regular crime?

Because it's racism, and racism is bad, mmkay?

No it's not reverse racism. It's just plain racism.

semantics...

 

[Danoff]

I just put it there, I wasn't pushing it, no one but you commented on it. And I didn't that clause in the first post, but nothing came of it. Sorry for making you use your caps lock.

I'll be honest, I didn't even read the first post. I didn't read anyone elses. I wanted to not be influenced subconsciously by anyone else.

It's probably a good idea to at least read the first post.

I don't like the fact that Bush essentially has unlimited power if he thinks what he does is for the good of the nation. I think eliminating it might bring back some trust from the american people of the government.

Exactly which provisions in the patriot act do you take issue with and why?

The higher taxes would help win over politicians so I could get enough votes. Besides, they are hazardous to your health, and this would discourage some from buying them. I'm not a libertarian, I think the goverment should watch out for people to an extent.

...and by "watch out for them" you mean try to use taxes to encourage them to do the things the government has decided is healthy. Didn't you just criticize the president for having too much power to do what he thinks is in the public "good"? Aren't you advocating something very similar here? On the one hand, you're criticizing our current president for some nebulous undefined power that you think he might have, and then advocating for additional government intervention.

We have oil reserves, and lots of them. We're pretty much using all forgein Oils now if I recall correctly. Don't quote me on that. I heard somewhere that we could reduce gas prices by 50 cents or more if we use our oil in addition to forgein oil. We're pretty much stockpiling now. This would provide some immediate release, allowing more time for people to start switching to biodiesel or other alternative fuels.

We get about 50% of our fuel domestically. Oil reserves only last so long, and they're designed to REDUCE oil prices - which are still too low (by your own admission) for people to consider the alternatives. People will switch on their own as foreign oil becomes more expensive. No need to speed the process up by diverting the people's money to biodiesel companies or artificially inflating the price of oil above the levels that are already making people scream.

Many gas stations that offer alternative fuels are not profitable. If the goverment helps them out a little,

You mean if people were forced to pay for it. Because that's what the government "helping them out" is essentially - forcing people to pay for something they've chosen not to voluntarily.

Isn't it already a states issue? And how many states can gay people get married in? Isn't it only California? I don't think that the goverment can restrict who can or can't get married. I can see it being up to the churches, that would be more logical.

Churches? The government doesn't say churches can't perform marriage cermonies for gay couples - only that they won't be recognized by law. That being said, I agree with you that the government shouldn't discriminate in this issue.

Because it's racism, and racism is bad, mmkay?

Granted. But what makes it worse than other crimes?

semantics...

Important semantics.

 

[Event]

Exactly which provisions in the patriot act do you take issue with and why?

Honestly, I don't know enough about it for me to have an effective argument.

...and by "watch out for them" you mean try to use taxes to encourage them to do the things the government has decided is healthy. Didn't you just criticize the president for having too much power to do what he thinks is in the public "good"? Aren't you advocating something very similar here? On the one hand, you're criticizing our current president for some nebulous undefined power that you think he might have, and then advocating for additional government intervention.

All taxes are like this, people pay money to the goverment even if they don't agree what the money is going towards. So much of the people's tax dollars went to the Katrina effort, and so much of that money was squandered by the ungrateful, but we couldn't just say "no I don't want my taxes to go to these ungrateful people." And this is totally different from Bush using illegal wiretaps. These are just taxes. And I'm not stopping anyone from going out and buying a pack of cigs or a bag of reefer, I'm just saying that if they want it, they will have to pay a lot for it. The price would be no larger than current street prices. People are willing to pay a lot for weed. I don't think they would be opposed to paying a smaller amount that before, even if a large portion of it goes to help a government sector that they don't want to help.

We get about 50% of our fuel domestically. Oil reserves only last so long, and they're designed to REDUCE oil prices - which are still too low (by your own admission) for people to consider the alternatives. People will switch on their own as foreign oil becomes more expensive. No need to speed the process up by diverting the people's money to biodiesel companies or artificially inflating the price of oil above the levels that are already making people scream.

when did I say the prices are too too low? They're too high right now!

You mean if people were forced to pay for it. Because that's what the government "helping them out" is essentially - forcing people to pay for something they've chosen not to voluntarily.

Again, it's just allocation of taxes.

Churches? The government doesn't say churches can't perform marriage cermonies for gay couples - only that they won't be recognized by law. That being said, I agree with you that the government shouldn't discriminate in this issue.

They should be recognized legally, thats my opinion.

Granted. But what makes it worse than other crimes?

Ok, beating up a black guy wouldn't be worse than killing a white guy, but if someone kills a black guy [/b]because he's black[/b] then it's unamerican. It goes against what it says in the declaration of independence, that all men are created equal. It should be tried as treason and murder.

Important semantics.

Is there really a difference at all between reverse racism and racism? I don't think its that important, and what you say is based off of what you have heard in your social environment and the media. toe-may-toh toe-mah-toe

 

[Danoff]

Honestly, I don't know enough about it for me to have an effective argument.

But you want to repeal the patriot act... nice. I'd suggest being informed first.

All taxes are like this, people pay money to the goverment even if they don't agree what the money is going towards.

Which is why government spending shouldn't be taken lightly.

when did I say the prices are too too low? They're too high right now!

You said prices were too low for people to consider gasoline alternatives.

Again, it's just allocation of taxes.

I like the word "just" here. It's "just" the reallocation of money taken forcibly from the citizens of this country.

Ok, beating up a black guy wouldn't be worse than killing a white guy, but if someone kills a black guy [/b]because he's black[/b] then it's unamerican. It goes against what it says in the declaration of independence, that all men are created equal. It should be tried as treason and murder.

Um... except that it wouldn't be treason. Look, a crime is a crime. Regardless of the reason committed (at this level). Some aspects of the thought that went into the crime are important, such as whether it was premeditated, or negligent, or purely an accident. But if I beat someone up because I don't like their shirt, or I beat them up because they're jewish, or I beat them up because I'm drunk... it shouldn't matter. I beat them up, that's the problem.

Is there really a difference at all between reverse racism and racism?

Racism is bad, reverse racism would then be, by definition, good right? Reverse racism implies some sort of "got you back" attitude. Like it was provoked. Like you deserved it because you were a racist first. That's not the case here. Affirmative action discriminates against people based on skin color, not the contents of their head. If affirmative action discrimianted only against racists, I might be willing to call it reverse racism. Since affirmative action discriminates against people based solely on skin color, it is quite simply "racist".

 

[Event]

But you want to repeal the patriot act... nice. I'd suggest being informed first.

I'm sorry, my education on the subject is what I've gotten from the liberal media. From what I hear it is bad, but thats all I've heard. I'm never going to be president, so why does it matter? I'm not very passionate about this as much as I am other things.

You said prices were too low for people to consider gasoline alternatives.

I never really implied that, but we need goverment help to lower the price of alternatives. A reduction in gas prices would give some immediate relief while the transistion begins.

I like the word "just" here. It's "just" the reallocation of money taken forcibly from the citizens of this country.

What are you suggesting? That we get rid of taxation, a system that has worked so well for hundreds of years around the world? If you think people would just donate money to the goverment, you're wrong, people are greedy. I would love to eliminate the tax system completely, but that would be the death of government and anarchy would ensue.

Um... except that it wouldn't be treason. Look, a crime is a crime. Regardless of the reason committed (at this level). Some aspects of the thought that went into the crime are important, such as whether it was premeditated, or negligent, or purely an accident. But if I beat someone up because I don't like their shirt, or I beat them up because they're jewish, or I beat them up because I'm drunk... it shouldn't matter. I beat them up, that's the problem.

It's an opinion thing, like the death penalty. it's my opinion that it is treason.

Racism is bad, reverse racism would then be, by definition, good right? Reverse racism implies some sort of "got you back" attitude. Like it was provoked. Like you deserved it because you were a racist first. That's not the case here. Affirmative action discriminates against people based on skin color, not the contents of their head. If affirmative action discrimianted only against racists, I might be willing to call it reverse racism. Since affirmative action discriminates against people based solely on skin color, it is quite simply "racist".

Forgive my misuse of the phrase, I claim ignorance. I didn't see the aknowledge the double negative. Sorry for my poor grasp of the english language. I am not a linguistical artist like some.

 

[Danoff]

I never really implied that, but we need goverment help to lower the price of alternatives. A reduction in gas prices would give some immediate relief while the transistion begins.

Immediate relief will postpone a transition.

What are you suggesting? That we get rid of taxation, a system that has worked so well for hundreds of years around the world? If you think people would just donate money to the goverment, you're wrong, people are greedy. I would love to eliminate the tax system completely, but that would be the death of government and anarchy would ensue.

No, just keep in mind that it's a big deal.

It's an opinion thing, like the death penalty. it's my opinion that it is treason.

Though technically (no opinion invovled) it isn't.

 

[wfooshee]

4. Turn my leadership into a dictatorship of sorts but not takign away civil rights of the public, therefore banning all oppisition parties so the country will not have to endure different views on how the country is led. Instead I'd give the public votes on important areas of concern such as how to deal with abusive youths or to introduce certain laws.

Ah, the "I'm right and you're wrong, so just go away" school of politics.

So, - - um, {thinking, gears whirring, fuses popping, etc} if there's no opposing viewpoint allowed, then they just vote on what you suggest? I think the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics tried that.

 

[87chevy]

If I was the Pres. of the US of A i would:

1. Close our borders. While the borders were closed Every single person that was here illegally would be found and deported. OR they could join a military unit described below-

2. I would form a special Unit in the army for forgieners to join and gain citizenship within 4yrs of service(that would start after all their initial training). Our version of the French Foriegn Legion. (oh how it pains me to give the French credit for a good idea) After their service their citizenship would be unquestionable.

3. Taxes would have to change. Probably a fed income tax that was a flat percentage for everyone. and there would be absolutely no exceptions.

4. I would return power to the states. I'd cut the federal government down as far as i could.

5. I would call for the drawing up of a new constitution. One written in modern, and simple language. The bill of Rights and all that would be preserved. And, it would come with a Glossary of terms so there would be no question as to what the important words meant. And yes, Citizens would still be able to own firearms. But, There would be no more state militias, you know the crazy rednecks that have secret meetings in the woods. The National Guard would be the only authorized state military.


i think that covers the basics. I could go on forever though about what i would change.

 

[Danoff]

I'm willing to bet this thread would get different answers from most people this time around. I posted this in another forum, and I think it's relevant.

Edit: It contains a little foreign policy - which I expressly forbid in the outset of this thread - but in this case the foreign policy is entirely motivated by domestic issues, so I think it's relevant.

Step 1) National sales tax and the abolition of the IRS. I do not subscribe to [the] opinion that income tax is better.
Step 2) Bring home most of the troops from Iraq and explain to the Iraqis we can't afford to protect them anymore.
Step 3) Elimination of regulatory agencies and homeland security.
Step 4) Phase-out of social security, medicare, welfare, and other government handouts (including farm subsidies).
Step 5) Phase-out drug law enforcement and drug laws themselves.
Step 6) With the reduction in drug laws, elimination of handouts, and institution of a sales tax, we can greatly reduce our border patrol.

I've got more, but you get the point.

The removal of the income tax code alone will save an estimated quarter of a trillion dollars in compliance costs. By comparison, the $10 billion saved by eliminating the IRS is peanuts. The war on drugs is another $20 billion. The war in Iraq is somewhere near $150 billion/year.

In the first two years (after step 6) the US economy would have saved on the order of $1 Trillion compared to what we're doing now. Can you tell me $500 Billion/year wouldn't help get the economy back on track? I didn't include the regulatory agency or welfare savings (I have no friggin clue how much they cost, but I'll bet it's a truckload). Homeland security is another $72 Billion.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think you just balanced the budget.

 

[YSSMAN]

Wow, my how my views have changed in little less than three years. Nevertheless, I've obviously relaxed my views on things quite a bit.

RE: Danoff's Tax & Spending Plans

I find them for the most part to be agreeable, and I'd be willing to work with them. However, I would choose to keep most of the regulatory institutions, albeit with a significant amount of reform done to balance their power and enact sensible regulations to protect consumers as best as possible. Of course, that assumes that we can find non-partisan leadership to help manage these institutions. We would have to float the idea of doing Fed-like appointments that could spread over Presidential terms.

But yes, a well done "fair tax" would be a welcome change, I think, in our current situation.

...I should update some of my current ideas, but I'm getting ready to leave class and go home...

 

[FoolKiller]

However, I would choose to keep most of the regulatory institutions, albeit with a significant amount of reform done to balance their power and enact sensible regulations to protect consumers as best as possible. Of course, that assumes that we can find non-partisan leadership to help manage these institutions. We would have to float the idea of doing Fed-like appointments that could spread over Presidential terms.

You do realize the part I bolded is a large part of why Danoff and I would like to do away with regulatory agencies, right?

Unelected officials with the ability to create policy that carries the weight of law, which is the sole jurisdiction of Congress. Regulatory appointees have no place in the Constitution and are basically making law without elected representation.

 

[Omnis]

I find them for the most part to be agreeable, and I'd be willing to work with them. However, I would choose to keep most of the regulatory institutions, albeit with a significant amount of reform done to balance their power and enact sensible regulations to protect consumers as best as possible. Of course, that assumes that we can find non-partisan leadership to help manage these institutions. We would have to float the idea of doing Fed-like appointments that could spread over Presidential terms.

You said the magic word. These institutions can't manage anything, no matter who is at the helm.

Markets work. Let them.

 

[Keef]

Sales tax

Danoff, I think my favorite thing about your idea is the fact that I would feel like I had much more money in my pocket. Lots more. And it would be easy to save money quicker, by simply not buying anything. Instead of my earnings being stolen off my paycheck automatically, I could control when I wanted to be taxed or not. That makes me smile. I like the thought of directly controlling the amount of money I give to the government. And in fact it would be giving, as opposed to the taking that is happening now.

Would this sales tax also eliminate the need to "tax" business earnings? Obviously they just raise the prices to offset that. If they never bothered with the business taxes and instead only had a sales tax, it'd bypass a lot of unnecessary steps. It would be one simple tax that people and businesses pay alike.

 

[Omnis]

Danoff, I think my favorite thing about your idea is the fact that I would feel like I had much more money in my pocket. Lots more. And it would be easy to save money quicker, by simply not buying anything. Instead of my earnings being stolen off my paycheck automatically, I could control when I wanted to be taxed or not. That makes me smile. I like the thought of directly controlling the amount of money I give to the government. And in fact it would be giving, as opposed to the taking that is happening now.

Would this sales tax also eliminate the need to "tax" business earnings? Obviously they just raise the prices to offset that. If they never bothered with the business taxes and instead only had a sales tax, it'd bypass a lot of unnecessary steps. It would be one simple tax that people and businesses pay alike.

Yes, it would. To keep government revenues the same, everyone pays a 30% sales tax. With the progressive FairTax prebate crap cut out, it will more likely be in the high teens to low twenties.

Of course, government could just cut the spending to flip the deficit so that we actually have a surplus, so that we can become a creditor again to all the other ailing Keynes-plagued nations, so that we could collect some interest to help with our own debt and lessen the cash flow that's leaving our treasury.

And then of course, you could get rid of legal tender laws and let money have its own market. This would reverse Gresham's Law and then golden grams (not the cereal) or some other sound money system or measure would likely take over.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think the only problem I have with the fair tax is how it would handle food, as it is something that I do not believe should be taxed. Personal belief, I know. But, the premise overall is pretty sound, and thats why I have supported it previously.

=-=-=-=-=

An additional idea I've had rolling around in my head...

Kicking more money into the R&D pool when it comes to solar, wind and "smart grid" technologies to help millions of Americans transition to "green" energy solutions. A likely requirement would be to remove funding for corn-based ethanol completely, placing it in technology that we know can work, and ultimately comes at a much lower cost to the people. Furthermore, I'd be looking to open up the R&D process to as many industries as possible. Its my understanding that Google is looking into aiding the "smart grid" system, and I see no reason why a company like GM couldn't help to build generators, or why Northrup Grumman couldn't manufacture propellers. Make in like the X-Prize, and I'm certain we could come up with some very effective ideas from the American people, many of which could be cheaper than the current alternatives already available.

 

[Nicksfix]

I would make so many changes ( long list ) that would help the common working people , who are the backbone of this country , and then I would probably get assassinated , for doing so.

 

[FoolKiller]

I would make so many changes ( long list ) that would help the common working people , who are the backbone of this country , and then I would probably get assassinated , for doing so.

By one of those common working people.

 

[Keef]

I think the only problem I have with the fair tax is how it would handle food, as it is something that I do not believe should be taxed. Personal belief, I know. But, the premise overall is pretty sound, and thats why I have supported it previously.

=-=-=-=-=

An additional idea I've had rolling around in my head...

Kicking more money into the R&D pool when it comes to solar, wind and "smart grid" technologies to help millions of Americans transition to "green" energy solutions. A likely requirement would be to remove funding for corn-based ethanol completely, placing it in technology that we know can work, and ultimately comes at a much lower cost to the people. Furthermore, I'd be looking to open up the R&D process to as many industries as possible. Its my understanding that Google is looking into aiding the "smart grid" system, and I see no reason why a company like GM couldn't help to build generators, or why Northrup Grumman couldn't manufacture propellers. Make in like the X-Prize, and I'm certain we could come up with some very effective ideas from the American people, many of which could be cheaper than the current alternatives already available.

I think if I were President I'd not even acknowledge anything to do with the environment. I'd leave that up to dynamic and ingenuitive companies to tackle in their free time.

Anyway, about taxing food, I see no reason why or even how it could be taxed. Food and water. Without that there'd be no life, so taxing food and water would be like taxing life. But there might be wiggle room to draw a line between what is necessary and what is luxury food. How about not taxing fresh perishables, like meat, vegetables, and non-perishables, like canned soup, but taxing perishable processed foods, like Lucky Charms and Coca-Cola?

No actually that's a terrible idea. No tax on foods.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see any reason not to tax food. I mean, afterall you need clothing and shelter too, are we not going to tax that?

It makes sense to apply a single-rate sales tax to all items equally. If you're concerned about poor people, the government can give back a rebate for a certain threshhold of taxes paid to everyone (equally). But I'd be against that in principle because it opens the door for worse.

The problem with exempting certain products is that it creates corporate lobbying in favor of exempting more products. The moment you say apples are exempt, watermelon producers will be up in arms. The moment you say watermelons are exempt, drug companies will be up in arms. Suddenly Banana Republic is lobbying to get their clothes listed on the tax exempt list as a necessity.

Tampax, Colgate, Oral-B, Dr. Scholls, Frito-Lay, Tyson, and Kraft will all be lobbying to be added to the list.

Nope - makes much more sense to apply it to all products equally and leave no room for unfair treatment.

 

[YSSMAN]

The food issue, apparently, was one of the major reasons why the fair tax was knocked off the ballot back in November, as there wasn't a good answer that everyone could agree to.

It sounded like the FairTax website was suggesting that food would be taxed at a lesser rate than everything else, but I may not have been reading it correctly. I'd prefer to have no tax at all on it, but I'm sure that it constitutes a pretty large portion of income that could head into the government. Someone correct me, but in some states, do they place a sales tax on food? Perhaps that kind of model would be needed to figure out how to address the lower income folks.

Of course, Danoff is right that it is a slippery slope. But if you limit it only to food, and refuse to budge, I don't see how there would be a huge problem, as sales tax is otherwise place on everything else. In all, the idea is solid, but there are going to be a lot of small points that will need tuning (like these).

 

[Keef]

Seems to me like a way for the government to guarantee their revenue by taking advantage of the only things people really need.

I personally think society is what deems clothing a necessity. Move to Florida if you're cold. And shelter? Come on. Stand under a tree if its raining. But you try and raise a few cells without food.

Here's your regulation: Things required to sustain life will not be taxed. Definition of life "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." The cell cycle doesn't say anything about underwear or double-pane windows. There's no room for argument there, and you don't need a list of participants or exemptions. Actually, I'll concede something--the only exemption to this rule would be for consumers who can't decipher that defintion in order to figure out what should be taxed or not. For them all foods are taxed, and double the normal rate.

This would kind of defeat the purpose of us citizens directly controlling how how we are taxed. Taxing food is no different than taxing income--it's required.

 

[Omnis]

What's wrong again with not taxing anything? Governments can set usage fees for the things they own (ie, infrastructure), and that should cover things.

We could do the One Tax, which is supposed to be a 1% or .1% VAT on everything.

 

[Keef]

Hopefully none of those things they own would be required to sustain life.

 

[Danoff]

What's wrong again with not taxing anything? Governments can set usage fees for the things they own (ie, infrastructure), and that should cover things.

Maybe eventually, not at first. I'd want to do this first - before changing anything else.

Seems to me like a way for the government to guarantee their revenue by taking advantage of the only things people really need...Taxing food is no different than taxing income--it's required.

Taxing your productivity is the same as taxing your food. If your job is to build hammers and hammer sales are taxed - then your livelihood, the thing you use to buy food with, is being taxed.

But sales tax is very different than income tax. Sales tax doesn't require knowing where you work, who you are, what you do, how much you make, where you live, how expensive your house is, or how many kids you have.

Also, it charges legal and illegal immigrants equally. It charges poor and rich equally, it affects everyone - which is the key.

Another benefit is that it's simple. No withholding, no deductions, no alternative minimum, child tax credits, or health care expense deductions. That means the IRS can be staffed down to about 1/10th and Joe Q public doesn't have to decipher a 1000 page document to figure out how to comply with tax law.

 

[Keef]

What's wrong again with not taxing anything? Governments can set usage fees for the things they own (ie, infrastructure), and that should cover things.

This would probably incite competition between private companies who would attempt to make money by offering the same services for less. The government would have to reduce its prices in order for people to still use theirs. And then the companies, and then the government, and eventually you get to a point where there's no charge on any of this stuff.

But then again, I'm sure people would still flock to the Air Force Museum here in Dayton if it cost them 5 bucks to get in. It's free right now.

But then again again, wouldn't charging money for government infrastructure put a damper on our right to know government goings on?

Which brings me to a question: Is C-SPAN a government-run station? Private? It obviously costs money because it's not broadcast over the air.

Taxing your productivity is the same as taxing your food. If your job is to build hammers and hammer sales are taxed - then your livelihood, the thing you use to buy food with, is being taxed.

But sales tax is very different than income tax. Sales tax doesn't require knowing where you work, who you are, what you do, how much you make, where you live, how expensive your house is, or how many kids you have.

Also, it charges legal and illegal immigrants equally. It charges poor and rich equally, it affects everyone - which is the key.

Another benefit is that it's simple. No withholding, no deductions, no alternative minimum, child tax credits, or health care expense deductions. That means the IRS can be staffed down to about 1/10th and Joe Q public doesn't have to decipher a 1000 page document to figure out how to comply with tax law.

I agree with all that stuff and think a sales tax is a pretty fantastic idea. It's so easy to understand. Might want to keep all your receipts though.

My only argument with your idea is the issue of taxing food. I'm having a hard time agreeing to allow a tax on something I must buy.

Or are you suggesting that nothing you buy is a necessity? For instance, I don't have to buy the grass that naturally grows in my yard, and it's edible. I don't have to pay for the fish in the river or the rabbits in the woods. And they're edible, and they'll do a mighty fine job of feeding life.

So, I just talked myself out of my own argument. I'll agree to allow food to be taxed. My justification for that is the fact that money is not food, and therefore nothing you have to buy with it is a necessity.

Not even the lettuce you grow in your own garden is a necessity. If it doesn't grow naturally, without any human intervention, then it can be taxed, whether it's seed or not.

Now all we have to do is make pot legal. Tax free, baby!