Forget Boston.....I'm having my own Tea Party

DirtBag · 10-24-2006, 11:55 PM

Tomorrow i will post my position on overhauling the Intelligence Community and it's oversight. Thus far it has been well received by my contacts still within the community.

*G_Man* · 10-25-2006, 07:54 AM

Quoting: DirtBag

I apologize for failing to mention that any and all deductions would be eliminated. Likewise, though, no capital gains or estate taxes. That should offset the "I'm taxed more because I earn more" argument.

While I agree that a consumption tax is theoretically more equitable, realistically the end result is largely the same in both systems.

You pay more because you either earn OR spend more, even though the tax rate is the same, than us paeons at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

The only other alternative would be an Absolute Tax. You would pay the same regardless of your income.

Remember though that this speaks ONLY to a Federal Tax and aims to avoid redundant taxation on same monies by multiple levels of Government. I would rather see Consumption Tax at the State Level rather than the Federal Level.

Income/Payroll tax at the Federal Level would eliminate same at lower levels.

The way I am proposing you would pretty much be filling out a Post Card to file your taxes.

Bear in mind that I am not inflexible on these Platform Positions. These are rough ideas that need development and definition.

I would walk away from the platform just because of this...

First, with or without "deductions" the only inescapable tax is consumption tax. For example, by not having capital gains taxes the wealthy would simply fill their pockets with Stock Options instead of taxable income, just as they do now. However, if they sell their stocks at a profit, the profit escapes taxation - free money. Not if you tax them at the counter.

Again, with a very low flat tax on income (or none at all) then filing would be very easy... oh wait, SUPER easy since there would be no need for the IRS, except to monitor businesses, instead of individuals... (checking sales versus taxes paid)

And sales tax and income tax as you propose is in my opinion the simpliest surest form of double taxation I've ever seen. I am okay with, but it is still double taxation.

Oh and if you use a strictly 'consumption' tax, you can additional stablized the country by having simply deductables... example, no tax on grocery items, water, electricity, natural gas, etc...

I don't believe that the two systems are the same at all. It is too easy to hide and manipulate income taxes. Of course their would be corruption in consumption tax, but easier to monitor and far more difficult. Also, acceptance. Oddly enough, even a rich person paying the same % of income tax will likely balk at paying $200,000 at the end of the year, when his employees pay only $2,000. They are unlikely to give a rat's arse at paying $20,000 tax to drive their Lexus, when their employee only paid $200 tax on his old beat up Honda.

Consumption tax promotes saving, too. Poor people spend often because they don't earn anything on their savings. If they are going to be taxed on spending, but not saving, many will save just to not pay taxes. Not real sound on their part, but true none the less.

Additionally, I believe the tax should be hidden on the shelf, like Germany. If a shirt sells for $20, with a 30% Consumption Tax, then the price shall read $26. This does two things. It keeps business from 'tricking the consumer' which is does now with its stupid, '.99' crap. It also takes the tax out of sight and out of mind of the wealthy. The simple see a $26 shirt and a $104 shirt and choose the expensive one, not considering that $24 will be going to the shelter they raised their noses at on the way to Nordstroms.

My Second Job

Babbaloo · 10-25-2006, 05:59 PM

Quoting: G_Man

Wow...

I already disagree, 100%

Flat tax is not fair. Unless you completely eliminate all deductions and tax all forms of income equally...

You want fair tax? Consumption Tax. Period.

I don't care if you make a grand or 10 million dollars. If you tax spent money then the money doesn't do any good unless it is taxed. Also, bigger spenders would actually contribute more to the system. Someone who pays $1000 tax on a $4000 vehicle contributes his share, just a Jay Leno would have to pay $100,000 in taxes to pay for his precious Ford GT. Doesn't matter if the money came from earnings, dividends, or from drug deals. Taxed at the counter.

Here is the real beauty of this. Want to perk your CEO with a company car? Go for it... but you'll pay taxes at the counter, instead of buying the CEO a car for company use, where the company deducts the value of the car and the CEO saves the expense of buying a car.

Babbaloo could probably better estole the benifits of Consumption Taxes.

You rang?

The Flat Tax system is a proposal that has been around for years and most people agree that it is, or rather can be, a fair system of taxation. However, the Tax Code as you point out has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with politics. Assuming D.C. would agree to bar all lobbyists from the halls of government for an extended period of time, and a Flat Tax is passed, the tax itself probably should not differentiate between individuals and entities. Anyone can form a corporation for what is essentially their job and if it saves them 5% they will do it.

A consumption tax is fairer as it will would treat all consumers equally. But that too assumes everyone spends equally - sure, tax the asshole that needs a $100,000 car. But, if I've learned anything in my career, the rich didn't get that way because they spent all their dough. Old money-ed rich people can be some of the most miserly folks you will ever know. Now if they horde away cash and live like relative hermits, they will benefit from a system that rewards their skinflint ways. They can amass a fortune that passes tax free to their kids at death while paying the same amount in tax as a family of four working their guts out and paying for college.

Both systems have their problems and I think you will seriously undermine states' rights as proposed. Nevertheless, perhaps this party should explore an integrated tax plan which includes separate taxing regimes for states.

YOUR AD HERE

COMPETITIVE RATES

DirtBag · 10-29-2006, 09:56 AM

Platform issue number 4: Intelligence Overhaul

We currently have 35 separate intelligence entities. While they each have their own areas of specialization they also have numerous areas where they overlap with other agencies. I don't even have to be a formerly active member of the intelligence community (I still belong to them until August 29, 2059 according to the paperwork I was required to sign upon my separation from the military in 1989) to realize that this is compleely ludicrous.

I would restructure everything into a single cohesive agency. This would eliminate the competitiveness between agencies and would open the flow of information between departments that was lacking between agencies prior to 9/11. The Bush Administration reforms have not corrected this problem. Mine would.

A new Special Executive Committee would be formed consisting of The President, Vice President, Chair and Vice Chair of Senate Intelligence, Chair and Vice Chair of House Intelligence, Chair and Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and of course G_Man and myself).

The Director and Deputy Director of National Intelligence would be selected by a consensus of department heads at the newly formed National Intelligence Agency and selections would be formally affirmed by the Special Executive Committee, though this would actually be just a formality.

Department heads would annually review performances and either reaffirm or move for removal. DNI and DDNI would serve until retirement or until removal from office. Removal would require evidence of wrong doing or of incompetence through vote of no confidence. Vote of Confidence could be called at any time by consensus of 3/4 of department heads. Number of Department heads would need to be determined.

DNI and DDNI would answer only to SEC. Any Intelligence Briefing must include one member of each of the five pillars (NIA, WHITE HOUSE, HOUSE OF REPS, SENATE, PENTAGON) so as each respective body is on the same sheet of music as all the others. Briefings would occure at least monthly and most likely weekly.

DNI and DDNI would be exempt from testifying before Congress, except in cases of Breech of National Security.

DirtBag · 10-29-2006, 10:10 AM

To Everyone:

Again, the platform issues are not set in stone. These are ideas that I have been bandying about in relation to issues that need to be addressed. While I am in the process of forming this Political Party, the party is not "mine". I WANT the involvement of the "Middle" American. I NEED the involvement of the "Middle" American if the party is to become viable.

We, as a nation, need a centrist party to become viable if we are to survive and to maintain our position in the world.

---DirtBag

"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."

---George Washington

Rhiannon · 10-29-2006, 10:34 AM

Quoting: G_Man

Wow...

I already disagree, 100%

Flat tax is not fair. Unless you completely eliminate all deductions and tax all forms of income equally...

You want fair tax? Consumption Tax. Period.

I don't care if you make a grand or 10 million dollars. If you tax spent money then the money doesn't do any good unless it is taxed. Also, bigger spenders would actually contribute more to the system. Someone who pays $1000 tax on a $4000 vehicle contributes his share, just a Jay Leno would have to pay $100,000 in taxes to pay for his precious Ford GT. Doesn't matter if the money came from earnings, dividends, or from drug deals. Taxed at the counter.

Here is the real beauty of this. Want to perk your CEO with a company car? Go for it... but you'll pay taxes at the counter, instead of buying the CEO a car for company use, where the company deducts the value of the car and the CEO saves the expense of buying a car.

Babbaloo could probably better estole the benifits of Consumption Taxes.

I must agree with G on this issue...consumption taxes are the fairest system. Right now you are taxed when you make it, taxed when you spend it, taxed when you save it, taxed for owning it, and taxed when you die...

Thank you NM

DirtBag · 10-29-2006, 11:49 PM

You are all missing this incredibly simple point: Taxes are multi-tiered.

I am addressing only the top most tier, Federal taxation. Why is this? Because of States Rights. No matter what tax you impose at the Federal level be it flat, consumption or a tax on how many times you crap each day the very simple fact is that you WILL be taxed again at a lower level of government. That is how local services are provided. National services are provided by Federal Taxes.

As the system exists now, you can be taxed in every category multiple times. This is part of the reason that we had a Boston Tea Party in the first place. A small part, but a part nonetheless. My propsal is to elimnate multiple taxation on any single category.

You earn a wage, also referred to in taxe code as payroll. While by technical definition an income is what is earned by businesses the definition has been bastardized to include wages in order to boost revenue. Seems more and more of us expect handouts and for the Government to care for us, rather than planning for ourselves, into our waning years. This is NON-SUSTAINABLE! Benefits paid out exceed taxes paid in. This is inverse logic. Even the GAO agrees we are running amuck.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...542.shtml?s=lh

Taxes need to be brought under serious control or they will escalate out of control in very short order. We could very realistically see a taxation rate of about 80-85% within the next 20-30 years if these issues aren't addressed now. But I digress.

You pay income tax at the Federal level. Few States do not charge a State Income Tax. G_Man and I are fortunate to live in one, though as I work 13 miles away in another state I do pay income tax there. Many Counties and even cities are now charging income taxes. People are being charged income tax up to 5 times at different levels. My intent is to eliminate double taxation. You CANNOT eliminate ALL taxation nor can you eliminate MULTI-TIERED taxation without trampling on States Rights. Unless you change your State Constitution, your state lgislators have the right to impose taxes on you. Bear in mind though, without local taxes all local services would cease to exist. Your fire and policing agencies would consist solely of volunteers using donated equipment.

In Multnomah, Clackamas and Washinton Counties in Oregon a quasi-public entity known as Tri-Met (Tri-County Metroploitan Area) provides bus and light rail services. This entity has been granted the ability to levy property taxes without referendum. This is truly taxation without representation. If it's happening there it can happen anywhere. Every bond that is passed is an ADDITIONAL tax on your property.

You should ONLY EVER BE TAXED ONCE in any category. Income, Property, Consumption. Any other categories you can think of? I am currently paying around $22,000.00 a year in combined income and consumption taxes, which represents approximately 37% of my $60,000.00 income. I do not own a home.

Again, I don't care what tax is collected at the Federal Level. Consumption would generate the most revenue for the Federal Government, however, there will always be another tax. Just not another Federal one if you are following me.

So let's say that the ONLY tax the Federal Government can collect is Consumption tax. Okay that's a win-win because we eliminate the need for the IRS.

Let's propose that the ONLY tax the State Government Collects is the Income Tax.

Let's propose that ONLY tax the County (or Parrish) Government collects is the Property Tax.

Does that make my intent any clearer?