Barring the unlikely event of a major lottery win I will never be called upon to pay rich man’s taxes. As a confirmed poor man however, I oppose laying more taxes on the rich. I would like see them pay at least as much as I do.
Proposals to tax the rich are not new. Way back when the argument against income taxes centered on, “ The power to tax is the power to destroy.” This argument has been proven over time and cultures. Crusader Knights were taxed out of existence; British debtor prisons were filled, or deported to American and Australia as bond slaves, with people unable to pay their taxes. Liberals advocate redistribution of the wealth, or take from the rich and give to the poor. This was Robin Hood’s philosophy, the merry men lived well but the poor were still poor, sounds like a government budget. Communist began with the same philosophy but soon ran out of wealth to redistribute and the poor’s pennies supported the state. More recently even the Taliban got in the act by taxing whoever had money and giving it those without, then turning around and taxing them because they now had money.
The State loves complicated tax codes simply because it can destroy at will. If it can’t silence dissents or catch criminals then get them for tax fraud. In taxation there are no honest mistakes. Drop a zero, lose your job, car, house and family then as a homeless person the state might give you some of your surrendered money. In the United States the rich man’s tax rate has been as high as 94 (ninety-four) percent. Why would anyone work hard for only six percent of worth?
The rich didn’t. Their advantage is that they can hire the best lawyers, accountants and politicians to insure that they pay the absolute minimum tax. The politicians favored the rich with exemptions, lawyers skirt the tax code and accountants fiddled the books so little if any tax is due.
Tax code reform is needed, not more redistribution of wealth because whatever goes into government, leaks out a thousand holes in the bucket. Consider: below the poverty line, no tax due; those above the poverty line gets a poverty line exemption and the remainder is taxed at what every rate is appropriate to meet the budget, no exceptions. Instead of asking advice from rich bankers on budget matters Congress should seek the advice of poor folks, they are the real budget experts. The poor know that you can’t spend what you don’t have. Government budgets should plan to balance, not plan to borrow and raise taxes to justify even larger deficits.
The world is in debt crisis because governments, the rich and middle class spent more than they can expect to repay in generations. Work hard, pay your taxes, and leave your great, great grand kids to pay off your debt.
Death and taxes right? Win a lottery, hire your own lawyers, accountants and politicians and plan to spend more than you win. Death Taxes will take anything left. The rich aren’t the problem or the solution; government is the problem avoiding a solution.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Same-o, same-o 111112
The 2012 Campaign is over, but not the election. Losers are still fighting delaying actions and T-party adherents are screaming for a resistance movement. It may be weeks even months before all the results are finally confirmed. Nowhere is the battle more intense than in Florida where conservative election officials are dragging their feet in a vain hope that the results will change. In their attempt to return the state to the 1940s they made their presidential votes immaterial, as to little too late.
Ultra conservatives attempted to overthrow constitutional protections in several states. The reality is that the incumbent President won (without Florida’s help) and a few conservatives lost their seats in Congress. The campaigns generated a great deal of anger and polarization, but the results were for the status quo. There was a slight trend to moderation and at local levels some of the more radical candidates lost.
At the national level, even before the last vote was counted, there was a declaration of ideological war. In the House, the Republican architects of the Fiscal cliff rewrote their own rules to keep an obstructionist in control of their budget negotiations. Voter polls indicating that deficit reform and budget compromise was an important election issue along with social issues. Radical House Republicans declared they would never accept any proposals from the Democrat president. There are those that still question the legitimacy of the President despite the fact that the voters have spoken twice.
In Maine a GOP official blames its losses on criminal “black” voter fraud. In the Southwest the blame game focused of Hispanic voters, Florida is more egalitarian blaming all minorities women, Democrats, independents and rogue Republican equally for negating its “fixed” electioneering. Conservatives in 20 states have filed petitions to secede from the United States.
All told, petitions have been filed on behalf of: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The stated justifications for secession are many and the movement will probably fail in the short term. It is however a distinct possibility for this century if governments continue ignore the interest of the country.
That great melting pot of diverse peoples and interests that made the country has come off the boil. Radical ideologies, religions and political self-interest have splashed cold water on American fires. Although elected to represent the people, politicians now strive to divide and conquer in order gain more tenured power. Politicians are well aware that most Americans are struggling to survive and can’t spare the time to study the issues. The people must rely on their elected officials to look after their interest, which makes them vulnerable to political manipulation and continued decline.
It is same o same-o (same-old) story of American politics, the people spoke and politicians won’t listen. What American Dream?
Ultra conservatives attempted to overthrow constitutional protections in several states. The reality is that the incumbent President won (without Florida’s help) and a few conservatives lost their seats in Congress. The campaigns generated a great deal of anger and polarization, but the results were for the status quo. There was a slight trend to moderation and at local levels some of the more radical candidates lost.
At the national level, even before the last vote was counted, there was a declaration of ideological war. In the House, the Republican architects of the Fiscal cliff rewrote their own rules to keep an obstructionist in control of their budget negotiations. Voter polls indicating that deficit reform and budget compromise was an important election issue along with social issues. Radical House Republicans declared they would never accept any proposals from the Democrat president. There are those that still question the legitimacy of the President despite the fact that the voters have spoken twice.
In Maine a GOP official blames its losses on criminal “black” voter fraud. In the Southwest the blame game focused of Hispanic voters, Florida is more egalitarian blaming all minorities women, Democrats, independents and rogue Republican equally for negating its “fixed” electioneering. Conservatives in 20 states have filed petitions to secede from the United States.
All told, petitions have been filed on behalf of: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The stated justifications for secession are many and the movement will probably fail in the short term. It is however a distinct possibility for this century if governments continue ignore the interest of the country.
That great melting pot of diverse peoples and interests that made the country has come off the boil. Radical ideologies, religions and political self-interest have splashed cold water on American fires. Although elected to represent the people, politicians now strive to divide and conquer in order gain more tenured power. Politicians are well aware that most Americans are struggling to survive and can’t spare the time to study the issues. The people must rely on their elected officials to look after their interest, which makes them vulnerable to political manipulation and continued decline.
It is same o same-o (same-old) story of American politics, the people spoke and politicians won’t listen. What American Dream?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Constitutional 110412
The concept of constitutional government is relatively new. As nation states evolved from the muck of feudalism and royal abuses the people began to demand better government. By the end of the 18th century the royalist were in retreat and wary populist movements demanded protection from a return to the past. The answer became a written constitution, a contract between the governed and the government.
Constitutions tend to follow two models, one is hundreds of pages long spelling out in detail what the state and the people can and can not do. This model is really the nation’s codified law requiring frequent changes as the dynamics change.
An early proponent of constitutional protections the United States originated a different model. This model is short, only seven brief Articles and in over 200 years has only been amended 27 times. The first 10 amendments were passed immediately and are known as the Bill of Rights, protecting the people from their government. The strength of the American model is if brevity and clarity. It establishes the basic structure of government, allocates the relative powers of its branches and guarantees the freedoms of the individual. More importantly it provides a national philosophy and culture that endures. The American Constitution has served as an idealized model for many emerging nations in the two centuries since it ramification.
Every soldier, sailor, cop and government employee is sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Even lawyers and elected officials swear to uphold the Constitution. Leave it to lawyers to search for creative ways around the Constitution, getting their names into law books. Many newly elected officials however immediately after swearing the oath, begin campaigns to overthrow the Constitution.
The drafters of the Constitution could not foresee how advanced technologies would change American elections nor, would they understand the uninformed populace. After the last vicious election cycle there will again be a number of partisan proposals to change the Constitution.
Consider some non-partisan changes to better serve and protect the people. A new right could be added to limit national political campaigns to thirty days. After all with television, Facebook, Twitter and Robo Calls candidates can deceive and alienate voters much more quickly than politicians of the 18th century. Another amendment would restrict the President to one, six-year term of office. Senators would still serve six years but half would stand for election every three years. Representatives would be elected for a three-year term, all standing for reelection every term.
These simple amendments protect the people from unreasonable prolonged invasions of their lives, their sanity and humor protected and neighborhood feuds reduced. A change in the voting cycle also saves the taxpayers the excessive cost of frequent elections and continuous campaigns. Voters would be allowed to recover between campaign assaults and might even get better government.
Constitutions tend to follow two models, one is hundreds of pages long spelling out in detail what the state and the people can and can not do. This model is really the nation’s codified law requiring frequent changes as the dynamics change.
An early proponent of constitutional protections the United States originated a different model. This model is short, only seven brief Articles and in over 200 years has only been amended 27 times. The first 10 amendments were passed immediately and are known as the Bill of Rights, protecting the people from their government. The strength of the American model is if brevity and clarity. It establishes the basic structure of government, allocates the relative powers of its branches and guarantees the freedoms of the individual. More importantly it provides a national philosophy and culture that endures. The American Constitution has served as an idealized model for many emerging nations in the two centuries since it ramification.
Every soldier, sailor, cop and government employee is sworn to uphold the Constitution.
Even lawyers and elected officials swear to uphold the Constitution. Leave it to lawyers to search for creative ways around the Constitution, getting their names into law books. Many newly elected officials however immediately after swearing the oath, begin campaigns to overthrow the Constitution.
The drafters of the Constitution could not foresee how advanced technologies would change American elections nor, would they understand the uninformed populace. After the last vicious election cycle there will again be a number of partisan proposals to change the Constitution.
Consider some non-partisan changes to better serve and protect the people. A new right could be added to limit national political campaigns to thirty days. After all with television, Facebook, Twitter and Robo Calls candidates can deceive and alienate voters much more quickly than politicians of the 18th century. Another amendment would restrict the President to one, six-year term of office. Senators would still serve six years but half would stand for election every three years. Representatives would be elected for a three-year term, all standing for reelection every term.
These simple amendments protect the people from unreasonable prolonged invasions of their lives, their sanity and humor protected and neighborhood feuds reduced. A change in the voting cycle also saves the taxpayers the excessive cost of frequent elections and continuous campaigns. Voters would be allowed to recover between campaign assaults and might even get better government.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Pres.’ priorities 110812
The presidential election is finally over leaving a political landscape devastation that far exceeds that of Sandy’s recent storm damage.
Despite their partisan legislatures’ attempts to manipulate the vote, Republicans are stunned by their loss. While the Democrats began a legal defense of voters’ rights before the election, Republican lawyers are now lining up to protest the Democratic victory. Republicans point to the fact that the international community (IC) supports the President. His approval rating overseas is 80-90 percent while at home it is less than 50 percent. According to Republicans this proves the President is un-American. What the figures really prove is that the IC is more interested in American politics than the Americans themselves, who are satisfied with sound bites.
The President has demonstrated that he understands that the United States in one neighborhood in a global community. What he is faced with in his second term is a hostile political landscape similar to that of the post-Civil War era. Just as in that era the task is to heal the country before the country can move forward.
In this term the President’s priorities must be:
First and foremost, convince Congress that the national interests are more important than ideology. Congress must be made to focus on solutions rather than obstructions.
Second, utilize the “Bully Pulpit” to educate the people that the nation’s strength lies in pulling together to solve problems. The fragmenting of society as seen in the election can only result in the ultimate fragmentation of the country. The melting pot myth no longer works. The pot has become a retort that separates rather than mixes. Society must become one of inclusion rather than exclusion.
Third, the deficit must be eliminated requiring belt tightening and tax reform. One without the other is counter-productive. Calling financial realities “all Greek to me” is dangerous because financial irresponsibility just sank the Greeks.
Fourth, military adventurism must be restrained as a cost that cannot be sustained. It has also proven to be counter-productive by making enemies and losing friends.
Fifth, positive action on the first four priorities buys the time and resources to deal with declining educational goals, failing infrastructure, manufacturing decline and falling prestige.
If the president can get in front of these issues then the nation’s prospects for the 22nd century are good. Fail now, and the question may well be U.S. who?
Despite their partisan legislatures’ attempts to manipulate the vote, Republicans are stunned by their loss. While the Democrats began a legal defense of voters’ rights before the election, Republican lawyers are now lining up to protest the Democratic victory. Republicans point to the fact that the international community (IC) supports the President. His approval rating overseas is 80-90 percent while at home it is less than 50 percent. According to Republicans this proves the President is un-American. What the figures really prove is that the IC is more interested in American politics than the Americans themselves, who are satisfied with sound bites.
The President has demonstrated that he understands that the United States in one neighborhood in a global community. What he is faced with in his second term is a hostile political landscape similar to that of the post-Civil War era. Just as in that era the task is to heal the country before the country can move forward.
In this term the President’s priorities must be:
First and foremost, convince Congress that the national interests are more important than ideology. Congress must be made to focus on solutions rather than obstructions.
Second, utilize the “Bully Pulpit” to educate the people that the nation’s strength lies in pulling together to solve problems. The fragmenting of society as seen in the election can only result in the ultimate fragmentation of the country. The melting pot myth no longer works. The pot has become a retort that separates rather than mixes. Society must become one of inclusion rather than exclusion.
Third, the deficit must be eliminated requiring belt tightening and tax reform. One without the other is counter-productive. Calling financial realities “all Greek to me” is dangerous because financial irresponsibility just sank the Greeks.
Fourth, military adventurism must be restrained as a cost that cannot be sustained. It has also proven to be counter-productive by making enemies and losing friends.
Fifth, positive action on the first four priorities buys the time and resources to deal with declining educational goals, failing infrastructure, manufacturing decline and falling prestige.
If the president can get in front of these issues then the nation’s prospects for the 22nd century are good. Fail now, and the question may well be U.S. who?
Monday, November 5, 2012
Voted? 110412
You voted for whom? In the next few days, hopefully, all the votes will be counted and Americans may get some rest from the constant slime bath of competing horror tales.
If there is not a clear victor, however, this election may drag past the inauguration. There will be counts and recounts; the line for lawsuits is already longer than the lines to vote. Even before the first vote was cast there were court challenges to partisan attempts to disenfranchise opposition voters. Federal courts have already overturned a number of these laws but many more are yet to be settled. Failing to legislate victory, some partisan supporters have fallen back on the century old practices before the “Voting Rights Act of 1965’” dis-information, intimidation, threats of violence and manipulation of the count. This election has been particularly nasty with big money out to buy the election and professional campaign “fraudsters” wildly slinging manure instead of mud.
The polarization and anger generated in this campaign may well lead to violence in response to question “Whom did you vote for?” Despite partisan attempts to identify your vote, it is still a secret ballot, put away the tee shirt, scrap off the bumper sticker, keep your vote to yourself and save your teeth. Suck it up, if your favorite didn’t win don’t worry the next campaign starts in January.
No matter who wins voters didn’t get who they thought they were voting for. In truth there was not a nickel’s worth of difference in the two presidential candidates. One is a moderate leaning left and the other, also moderate but leaning right. While the media was cheering on the horse race, the fans were distracted from looking at the extra weight the horses were carrying. It is not who is elected but whom he brings with him that matters. Despite the blame game, the power is in Congress not the White House. The President gets the blame and has the responsibility to implement unachievable legislation. He is trapped by the campaign obligations to try to make it work. Those obligations must be paid for by appointments for the parties’ more radical supporters with contrary agendas of their own.
While fans celebrate whoever crosses the finish line, the victor already owes his sole to vested interest. The big race obscured the fact that partisan radicals were going after State and Federal legislature seats. Despite moderate presidential candidates the moderate electorate loses because the winner must pander to louder and more radical of the party promises. Democracy has become the dictatorship of the few.
If there is not a clear victor, however, this election may drag past the inauguration. There will be counts and recounts; the line for lawsuits is already longer than the lines to vote. Even before the first vote was cast there were court challenges to partisan attempts to disenfranchise opposition voters. Federal courts have already overturned a number of these laws but many more are yet to be settled. Failing to legislate victory, some partisan supporters have fallen back on the century old practices before the “Voting Rights Act of 1965’” dis-information, intimidation, threats of violence and manipulation of the count. This election has been particularly nasty with big money out to buy the election and professional campaign “fraudsters” wildly slinging manure instead of mud.
The polarization and anger generated in this campaign may well lead to violence in response to question “Whom did you vote for?” Despite partisan attempts to identify your vote, it is still a secret ballot, put away the tee shirt, scrap off the bumper sticker, keep your vote to yourself and save your teeth. Suck it up, if your favorite didn’t win don’t worry the next campaign starts in January.
No matter who wins voters didn’t get who they thought they were voting for. In truth there was not a nickel’s worth of difference in the two presidential candidates. One is a moderate leaning left and the other, also moderate but leaning right. While the media was cheering on the horse race, the fans were distracted from looking at the extra weight the horses were carrying. It is not who is elected but whom he brings with him that matters. Despite the blame game, the power is in Congress not the White House. The President gets the blame and has the responsibility to implement unachievable legislation. He is trapped by the campaign obligations to try to make it work. Those obligations must be paid for by appointments for the parties’ more radical supporters with contrary agendas of their own.
While fans celebrate whoever crosses the finish line, the victor already owes his sole to vested interest. The big race obscured the fact that partisan radicals were going after State and Federal legislature seats. Despite moderate presidential candidates the moderate electorate loses because the winner must pander to louder and more radical of the party promises. Democracy has become the dictatorship of the few.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)