my connection with the tea party

[eppie]

In a dutch newspaper I read an interview with a guy from the tulsa912project (a tea party type organization in Oklahoma).
Most things this guy said I had no connection with at all (religious views, anti goverment views), but he finished with some words I could realy relate to.

It was about his preparations for crisis situations. He said he he prepared guns, ammunition, shelter and canned foods, for when the dollar would crash etc. This is probably a more common view in the US, but in Europe you don't hear much about this. We are probably to much convinced that our government will save us when things go wrong.
I personally can really relate with this. Maybe you can call it paranoid but I a also always thinking about what the best survival strategy would be when things go really wrong. (and I am quite convinced we will get periods with pretty deep crises because of things like population increase and climate change (the latter, funnily enough the tulsa guy didn't believe in).
I would like, my next house to be a free standing one with enough terrain, so that I can grow my own vegetables, and generate my own energy (probably the tulsa guy, also doesn't believe in solar energy ).
These tulsa people were also giving courses about how to preserve food when you can't run your freezers etc.....very interesting.

So although politically I find the views of these people a bit egoistic, I can surely relate to it in several ways. Because it doesn't matter how strong and well functioning government you have, when there is real crisis or war, everything gets ditched and you have to manage things on your own.

[LavCat]

I have a bank full of fish, so I should be OK till the Internet goes down. If you mean in real life, I threw away the canned fish I bought in the 1970's. I figured I was not likely to eat it and live.

But I still have some fish in the freezer from the last millennium.

[shoju]

Most people wont argue that part, it's the rest of the ideology of the movement that gets them branded as whackjobs sadly.

[Frag]

Even the basis of the Tea Party's fiscal argument makes a lot of sense. The core issues are stable, the fringe members/ideas not so much, the head-line grabbing leadership possibly less so. Just like how a governments legitimacy is an issue of controlling it's populace and it's guns, a movements is largely an issue of controlling it's members and the leadershipless Tea Party is ... sad.

[Lissa]

Even the basis of the Tea Party's fiscal argument makes a lot of sense. The core issues are stable, the fringe members/ideas not so much, the head-line grabbing leadership possibly less so. Just like how a governments legitimacy is an issue of controlling it's populace and it's guns, a movements is largely an issue of controlling it's members and the leadershipless Tea Party is ... sad.

I'm not sure I would agree that their core issue is correct. Yes, we need to cut spending, but at the same time, we have to increase revenue. The fact that you have a large number of the top 2% income earners in the US saying that they should be paying more in taxes is incredible that the Tea Party is so blantantly going against what they say on taxes. I saw an article from the WSJ a couple months back that looked at the amount of taxes paid by the top 2% as a function of what percentage of income they pay against what percentage of income the middle class (those making $25k to $75k for a family of four per year) and the top 2% were paying between 18% and 22% of their income in taxes where as the middle class was paying between 25% and 28%. As it goes, the fact that the Tea Party, and the Republicans as a whole, can't recognize that taxes have to be raised against this top 2% (and, as I said, a number of the top 2% are boggling over why their taxes aren't higher) is astounding.

[DeeBye]

I'm not sure I would agree that their core issue is correct. Yes, we need to cut spending, but at the same time, we have to increase revenue. The fact that you have a large number of the top 2% income earners in the US saying that they should be paying more in taxes is incredible that the Tea Party is so blantantly going against what they say on taxes. I saw an article from the WSJ a couple months back that looked at the amount of taxes paid by the top 2% as a function of what percentage of income they pay against what percentage of income the middle class (those making $25k to $75k for a family of four per year) and the top 2% were paying between 18% and 22% of their income in taxes where as the middle class was paying between 25% and 28%. As it goes, the fact that the Tea Party, and the Republicans as a whole, can't recognize that taxes have to be raised against this top 2% (and, as I said, a number of the top 2% are boggling over why their taxes aren't higher) is astounding.

NO MORE TAXES!

I love how the Republicans can say "No increases in taxes" when they really mean to say "No increases in taxes for the filthy rich".

[GhastMaster]

I'm not sure I would agree that their core issue is correct. Yes, we need to cut spending, but at the same time, we have to increase revenue. The fact that you have a large number of the top 2% income earners in the US saying that they should be paying more in taxes is incredible that the Tea Party is so blantantly going against what they say on taxes. I saw an article from the WSJ a couple months back that looked at the amount of taxes paid by the top 2% as a function of what percentage of income they pay against what percentage of income the middle class (those making $25k to $75k for a family of four per year) and the top 2% were paying between 18% and 22% of their income in taxes where as the middle class was paying between 25% and 28%. As it goes, the fact that the Tea Party, and the Republicans as a whole, can't recognize that taxes have to be raised against this top 2% (and, as I said, a number of the top 2% are boggling over why their taxes aren't higher) is astounding.

I think you are referring to taxes other than that on income. Sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, and various other taxes do end up consuming a larger percentage of a persons gross income when they make less. Income tax on the other hand is(should be, IMO) simply(or not) a percentage of your income no matter what amount you gross.

Lower earners do have the option of not consuming products and avoiding sales tax. That would mean they would have to make everything on their own(or black market purchases). They do not have to buy gasoline and can avoid that tax. The list can go on and on.

Not every low wage earner pays a higher percentage. Some must pay a negative percentage, considering all the welfare programs that exist.

I like turtles.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, and various other taxes do end up consuming a larger percentage of a persons gross income when they make less.

Which is why sales tax and property tax should be phased out. Gasoline tax should be replaced, as fast as possible, by a road usage tax assessed using sensors on the roads that determine mileage driven. Gasoline used for recreational purposes (boats, off road bikes, snowmobiles, etc.) should be taxed at the cost of repairing the damage done by those toys.

Income tax on the other hand is(should be, IMO) simply(or not) a percentage of your income no matter what amount you gross.

I do not understand this. Are you saying that there should be one fixed rate of income tax for everyone? That is not what it "is", and I do not agree that that is what it should be. A graduated income tax, properly calibrated and properly implemented is the best form of tax.

Lower earners do have the option of not consuming products and avoiding sales tax.

Right. After all, they don't need all those luxuries -- like food, clothing, shelter, transportation, water (yeah, that costs nowadays).

That would mean they would have to make everything on their own(or black market purchases).

Right, again. For you can make a coat out of air, a meal from sand, etc. Of course, forcing people that are poor to become criminals as well is a valid solution.

They do not have to buy gasoline and can avoid that tax.

Sure. In a nation that has, on the average, the worst public transportation infrastructure of the industrial nations, they can ride the non-existent subways. If they're real lucky, they can ride the poorly designed bus routs and only add a few hours to their work day. After all, the poor have so much excess time, not having to waste all that time on the golf courses and concert halls.

The list can go on and on.

Yes, the list of inanities can go on forever.

--Pete

[Lissa]

I think you are referring to taxes other than that on income. Sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, and various other taxes do end up consuming a larger percentage of a persons gross income when they make less. Income tax on the other hand is(should be, IMO) simply(or not) a percentage of your income no matter what amount you gross.

Nope, I am not. The WSJ was speaking specifically about income taxes alone. Most people don't realize the various tax rates at various income levels. The income tax rate on dividend income is 15%. Now, if you look at the top 2%, some take in a very large percentage of their income through stock dividends. Warren Buffet in fact takes in so much dividend income each year that he pays around 16% to 17% of his total income per year as taxes.

Lower earners do have the option of not consuming products and avoiding sales tax. That would mean they would have to make everything on their own(or black market purchases). They do not have to buy gasoline and can avoid that tax. The list can go on and on.

How do you expect the low income earners to get an income if they live outside a metropolitan area? I don't know if you've ever lived out in a rural area, but the average pay in rural areas is much, much lower than cities (most rural living people think that if you pull in $50k/year you're rich where as $50k/year in a metropolitan area is relatively normal). Low income earners have to buy a car, they have to buy gas, otherwise they don't have much chance to survive as there is no public transportation in a rural area. You simply cannot get by without buying something that requires you to pay sales tax in some way.

Not every low wage earner pays a higher percentage. Some must pay a negative percentage, considering all the welfare programs that exist.

I like turtles.

Have you ever had you income low enough to require those services? As a college student I was placed into the hospital after being forced into a parked car while riding a bike. I didn't have the money for that hospital stay, nor the surgery to put my shoulder back together. If it weren't for programs like that, my right arm would be mostly useless for lifting anything of semi descent weight (I could lift a gallon milk/water jug, but anything above that in weight wasn't likely).

And as a final comment, consider this:

the top 400 income earners in the US bring in as much income a year as the bottom 150,000,000 (50% of the total population). 0.0003% at the top makes as much as the bottom 50%.

[Nystul]

In farm country with the big ranch houses a lot of people are prepared to eat out of their basement in case of a blizzard or massive flood. It tends to be economical anyway to have a long term food strategy instead of running to the store every few days like I do now as an apartment dweller. If we talk about some kind of crisis that could affect the nation or world for years, everyone would have to adapt to and find a way to be productive and get by. I guess in a time of crisis a lot of people find out what is really important to them and come out better for it even if they have less in the way of material things.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm not sure I would agree that their core issue is correct. Yes, we need to cut spending, but at the same time, we have to increase revenue. The fact that you have a large number of the top 2% income earners in the US saying that they should be paying more in taxes is incredible that the Tea Party is so blantantly going against what they say on taxes. I saw an article from the WSJ a couple months back that looked at the amount of taxes paid by the top 2% as a function of what percentage of income they pay against what percentage of income the middle class (those making $25k to $75k for a family of four per year) and the top 2% were paying between 18% and 22% of their income in taxes where as the middle class was paying between 25% and 28%. As it goes, the fact that the Tea Party, and the Republicans as a whole, can't recognize that taxes have to be raised against this top 2% (and, as I said, a number of the top 2% are boggling over why their taxes aren't higher) is astounding.


I think you are referring to taxes other than that on income. Sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, and various other taxes do end up consuming a larger percentage of a persons gross income when they make less. Income tax on the other hand is(should be, IMO) simply(or not) a percentage of your income no matter what amount you gross.

Lower earners do have the option of not consuming products and avoiding sales tax. That would mean they would have to make everything on their own(or black market purchases). They do not have to buy gasoline and can avoid that tax. The list can go on and on.

Not every low wage earner pays a higher percentage. Some must pay a negative percentage, considering all the welfare programs that exist.

I like turtles.

And what planet, sir, do YOU live on? Cause it ain't the same one I'm from. Yours sounds wonderful, I'd like to visit sometime.

---

I think you are referring to taxes other than that on income. Sales tax, gasoline tax, property tax, and various other taxes do end up consuming a larger percentage of a persons gross income when they make less. Income tax on the other hand is(should be, IMO) simply(or not) a percentage of your income no matter what amount you gross.

Nope, I am not. The WSJ was speaking specifically about income taxes alone. Most people don't realize the various tax rates at various income levels. The income tax rate on dividend income is 15%. Now, if you look at the top 2%, some take in a very large percentage of their income through stock dividends. Warren Buffet in fact takes in so much dividend income each year that he pays around 16% to 17% of his total income per year as taxes.

Lower earners do have the option of not consuming products and avoiding sales tax. That would mean they would have to make everything on their own(or black market purchases). They do not have to buy gasoline and can avoid that tax. The list can go on and on.

How do you expect the low income earners to get an income if they live outside a metropolitan area? I don't know if you've ever lived out in a rural area, but the average pay in rural areas is much, much lower than cities (most rural living people think that if you pull in $50k/year you're rich where as $50k/year in a metropolitan area is relatively normal). Low income earners have to buy a car, they have to buy gas, otherwise they don't have much chance to survive as there is no public transportation in a rural area. You simply cannot get by without buying something that requires you to pay sales tax in some way.

Not every low wage earner pays a higher percentage. Some must pay a negative percentage, considering all the welfare programs that exist.

I like turtles.

Have you ever had you income low enough to require those services? As a college student I was placed into the hospital after being forced into a parked car while riding a bike. I didn't have the money for that hospital stay, nor the surgery to put my shoulder back together. If it weren't for programs like that, my right arm would be mostly useless for lifting anything of semi descent weight (I could lift a gallon milk/water jug, but anything above that in weight wasn't likely).

And as a final comment, consider this:

the top 400 income earners in the US bring in as much income a year as the bottom 150,000,000 (50% of the total population). 0.0003% at the top makes as much as the bottom 50%.

Careful Lissa, the capitalists of the board are likely to shoot that last comment down as being false (even though its not) or as being communist I mentioned that statistic before in another thread previously.

Anywhoo, outside of the 2nd Amendment and this survival issue should things get hairy, I don't think there is a single core issue that the Tea Party and Republican Party in general has that I agree with. They are completely out of touch with the needs of the middle and working class, and I don't need to mention the poor. Ironically, most laymen Tea Baggers themselves are working class, yet somehow its imbedded in their minds that Wall Street goons are their best friends. Go figure. False consciousness and mainstream propaganda ftw!

[Frag]

On the core issues, there is a semi-fleshed out general guideline, found at http://www.teaparty-platform.com:

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsbility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence

Alternatively, you also have Hecker's ContractWithAmerica:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law
2. Reject emissions trading
3. Demand a balanced federal budget
4. Simplify the tax system
5. Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending
7. Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
9. Reduce Earmarks
10. Reduce Taxes

While I have more than a couple nitpicks with individual definitions of these concepts, I believe that there is value most of the basics.

I like hares.

[Maitre]

-- snip --
I saw an article from the WSJ a couple months back that looked at the amount of taxes paid by the top 2% as a function of what percentage of income they pay against what percentage of income the middle class (those making $25k to $75k for a family of four per year) and the top 2% were paying between 18% and 22% of their income in taxes where as the middle class was paying between 25% and 28%. As it goes, the fact that the Tea Party, and the Republicans as a whole, can't recognize that taxes have to be raised against this top 2% (and, as I said, a number of the top 2% are boggling over why their taxes aren't higher) is astounding.

I heard an interview on NPR's Fresh Air last week or so about the percentage of income that American's pay in taxes compared to Europeans, and the interviewee was adamant that American's would balk at the tax burden leveed upon Europeans, but it occurs to me that a full comparison of services was not presented with this discussion.

As someone who paid in that 22-28% range last year, I can tell you that I don't have a significant problem with my tax burden, but what I do have a problem with is the labyrinthine deduction/credit system that is applied under the US tax system. Quite simply, in my view, the rich can pay lower percentages in taxes because they can afford better tax planning services. Me, I depend on my own understanding of the tax code and what I can figure out from the tax prep software.

I’m just realizing how little I'm adding to the discussion here. Sorry for that, but I would like to draw attention to the following:

On the core issues, there is a semi-fleshed out general guideline, found at http://www.teaparty-platform.com:

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
--snip--
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States

To my mind, I think #5 ought to be a higher priority for a political party. Just like upholding the law ought to be the highest priority for the legal system.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Quite simply, in my view, the rich can pay lower percentages in taxes because they can afford better tax planning services. Me, I depend on my own understanding of the tax code and what I can figure out from the tax prep software.

Good point, and valid, but incomplete. There are also many ways of tax sheltering that require a fairly large income. Say that, like so many in the middle class you have very little left after living expenses, set asides for retirement, possibly paying into an educational fund (or repaying student loans, and other immediate needs. Then it is not possible for you to put large quantities into municipal bonds or other such low/no tax sources of income.

Consider, if you need 90% of your income to live, you only have 10% to put into shelters. That might reduce your taxes, but not by much. If a wealthy person can live on 10% of his income, he can put the other 90% into shelters, greatly reducing his tax burden.

I’m just realizing how little I'm adding to the discussion here. Sorry for that, but I would like to draw attention to the following:

On the core issues, there is a semi-fleshed out general guideline, found at http://www.teaparty-platform.com:

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
--snip--
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States

To my mind, I think #5 ought to be a higher priority for a political party. Just like upholding the law ought to be the highest priority for the legal system.

Well, first, I think you've contributed two excellent points, so no need to apologize for your contribution.

And, second, I strongly agree with you. Any political organization or public figure who doesn't put the Constitution first should be disenfranchised -- not only should they not be able to hold public office, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

--Pete

[DeeBye]

The Democrat and Republican split in core values in the US really sucks. There just isn't anything completely appealing about either party to the majority of the citizens. The super-rich love the Republicans for low taxes, but the really poor want Democrats for social programs. Everyone else is stuck between the two, and they have people from both sides yelling at them that their system is better.

The fact of the matter is that the government is made up of really rich people and is lobbied by really rich people. I have a hard time believing that "governing" is their first priority.

[GhastMaster]

Sorry,

I'll give you a little bit of my history. I grew up in a rural area with one stop light in town. Since my childhood I have lived in the city and have no kids or significant other. I have made no more than twenty thousand dollars a year in the last 8 years(most of the time less than 15k), never used any welfare programs, and I visit my chiropractor once a week for thirty five dollars a pop. I used to live in a nice area and rode my bike to work across the street. I moved to another place and rode my bike 45 minutes to work in the dead of winter in Ohio. I eat healthy food. I have a garden. I have hopes and dreams. I am pretty happy. I am one of the people that pays a far higher portion of my income into taxes. I choose to drive a car now. I choose to buy some groceries at the store rather than grow them and can them, like my mom used to do. I like the corporations who pay me to work. I have air conditioning running all summer, I have my own room and a bathroom(and more). I am a lot more comfortable than my great-grandparents. I have the best internet the cable company offers. I drink beer.

That said, why am I subsidizing houses for section 8? Why am I feeding someone else's children? Why am I paying for medicaid and medicare? I will never use these programs(even though I probably could). Why do lawmakers make me pay for people who are better off than I?

I do not understand this. Are you saying that there should be one fixed rate of income tax for everyone? That is not what it "is", and I do not agree that that is what it should be. A graduated income tax, properly calibrated and properly implemented is the best form of tax.

Sorry, income tax is a percentage of your income. In the U.S. people pay different percentages depending on how much they earn. I assumed everyone knew that there are clearly defined rates(not that you didn't). That said, how can lower income people pay a larger portion of income if their percentage is set at a lower rate? Lissa explained this saying, "Now, if you look at the top 2%, some take in a very large percentage of their income through stock dividends. Warren Buffet in fact takes in so much dividend income each year that he pays around 16% to 17% of his total income per year as taxes." I do not know why dividends are not taxed at the same rate as income. I would like to know the logic behind that.

I believe that everyone should pay the same percentage of any tax that is applied to their income. I do not believe in any form of a tax break or credit. The accounting profession is consuming a lot of unnecessary people and money that could be applied to manufacturing and investment. If everyone paid seventeen percent(arbitrary number) on their income, you would not need an accountant to do most people income taxes. Why do you think there should be a graduated income tax Pete? Who would you tax more? What rate? I know life is not fair, but setting a higher percentage on higher earners seems a little mean. Also a graduated tax would give people reason to lobby for lower taxes at their level, causing a little room for corruption. At a fixed flat rate(constitutional amendment required) there wouldn't be much room for corruption in the tax code.

Right. After all, they don't need all those luxuries -- like food, clothing, shelter, transportation, water (yeah, that costs nowadays).

I think I just consider some things a luxury that others do not. I compare what is available today, to what was not 100 years ago. Things like electricity and running water are nice, but not necessary. Certainly they are not luxuries. Well maybe in some countries they are. Makes me think, maybe being a U.S. citizen is a luxury in and of it's self. Something some people forget. Back to the point...food is necessary, however it can be acquired from places other than the open market. As for shelter, I have never heard of a rentee's tax. It is assumed that landlords pass on property tax to the renter. This would be indirect tax, but a tax none the less. My parents do not pay a tax for water. They use a cistern. Am I thinking too far outside the box?

Right, again. For you can make a coat out of air, a meal from sand, etc. Of course, forcing people that are poor to become criminals as well is a valid solution.

I understand your point. It is hard to avoid consuming products(and the taxes levied on them), but it can be done, and is. I firmly believe that black markets become popular in situations where taxes are too high. An example of this exists right now with the heavy cigarette taxes in a lot of states, and the subsequent crossing of state lines for lower taxes. I know, it's more like a grey market than it is black.

Sure. In a nation that has, on the average, the worst public transportation infrastructure of the industrial nations, they can ride the non-existent subways. If they're real lucky, they can ride the poorly designed bus routs and only add a few hours to their work day. After all, the poor have so much excess time, not having to waste all that time on the golf courses and concert halls.

As I stated above, I do not use public transportation. In Cincinnati it sucks. I walk, ride, or drive anywhere I go. Sometimes hours, in each case.

And as a final comment, consider this:

the top 400 income earners in the US bring in as much income a year as the bottom 150,000,000 (50% of the total population). 0.0003% at the top makes as much as the bottom 50%.

I don't care if they make ten billion times more than God. I am doing just fine(aside from the mouse that just sniffed my foot), and so are the majority of the people I've met in my life. Why should I care about how much money someone else is making? I would like that much money.

[FireIceTalon]

Things like electricity and running water are nice, but not necessary.

This applies to almost your entire post, but the quoted text is exceptionally mind shattering.

[GhastMaster]

This applies to almost your entire post, but the quoted text is exceptionally mind shattering.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

[DeeBye]

Back to the point...food is necessary, however it can be acquired from places other than the open market.

So you are suggesting we all hunt and gather for our food? Your whole post is mind boggling.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I do not know why dividends are not taxed at the same rate as income. I would like to know the logic behind that.

The "logic" behind that is mostly that the rich politicians give themselves and their rich buddies a break. There is a school of thought that by taxing investment income at a lower rate, investment is encouraged which, in turn, generates more jobs and a better economy overall. Sometimes that even works a little bit. However, experience teaches us that investment in industry and commerce goes up when things are going well and everybody is happy and goes down when things look bad. The perception of the economy seems to be the biggest factor in the performance of the economy.

The question of state, county, and municipal bonds and federal taxes on them is the last surviving shred of the concept that states are independent and sovereign and that the tenth amendment has any validity.

I do not believe in any form of a tax break or credit.

On that, we are in agreement. That a person paying a mortgage on their home should get a break that another paying rent does not is, IMO, wrong. Similarly, the person who gets a company car to use as their own, or jet, or house, should have a fair market cost for those items included as part of their income. People who chose to have children should not expect a tax break for something that actually increases the cost to society.

The accounting profession is consuming a lot of unnecessary people and money that could be applied to manufacturing and investment.

Right. because there are so many manufacturing jobs just begging to be filled. And investment? What would these unemployed accountants invest?

Why do you think there should be a graduated income tax Pete? Who would you tax more? What rate? I know life is not fair, but setting a higher percentage on higher earners seems a little mean.

I suspect that you know how tax brackets go. So you do know that if one person makes 40k and another makes 60k, the bottom 40k for each is taxed the same (putting aside the question of deductions, loopholes, etc.). So the higher rate, if any, on the top 20k still leaves that person with more money than the other.

As a way of getting into this, consider the case of a traffic ticket, say for speeding. Let's assume that in some jurisdiction somewhere, the fine for 10 above the limit (in some unit of speed) is 50 (in some unit of currency). Now on some given day two people are ticketed for that violation. One person is a rich man for whom 50 is insignificant -- he spends more than that each Friday and Saturday out on the town. The other is a poor man for whom that 50 represents a reduction in the quantity and quality of food for weeks to come.

On the one hand, you could say the law is fair, they both paid the same fine for the same offense. On the other hand, you can claim that the 50 was a punishment to the poor man and no punishment to the rich, and thus unfair. Both viewpoints have merit. If the purpose of the law is to prevent speeding, then the law is a failure -- it only prevents the poor from speeding.

IMO, a similar principle applies to taxation. It is the duty of the citizens to support their government financially. Now, it could be argued that all citizens should pay the same total tax, since they are all equal under the law. In one sense, this would be "fair" although it might be extremely burdensome to the poor and hardly noticeable by the rich. A somewhat less "fair" idea might be to tax everybody at the same rate instead of the same amount. The fairness of this might be called into question when one considers that 20% of 20k might well mean the difference between having a place to live and sleeping in the street while 20% of 200k might only mean the difference of going to Las Vegas three times a year instead of four.

So, my idea? First, all income counts: wages, salaries, dividends, health benefits, etc. Second, no deductions (investment losses are not deductions). Third, an established national poverty level (PL). Income up to the PL is untaxed. Income above the PL but less than 2PL is taxed at some low, yet reasonable, rate (5% to 10%). Tax brackets are in increments of the PL. All income above 10PL is taxed at 90% or more. Also, the minimum wage should be PL/2000 -- anyone working full time should not be impoverished.

Yeah -- it is too simple, so to be practical it would need some adjustments. However, if it gets more complex than can be described in ten pages of 10 point type, then it needs to be simplified.

Things like electricity and running water are nice, but not necessary.

Not true. Sure, if you live in a log cabin in the Yukon they may not be necessary. Think of a major city (any city with population 1 million or more). Running water is essential, both for drinking and for a level of hygiene sufficient to keep cholera and such at bay. Electricity a bit less so, but the amount of wood, whale oil, and coal needed for warmth, light, and industry would, at the least, make living there unpleasant and probably unhealthy.

Makes me think, maybe being a U.S. citizen is a luxury in and of it's self. Something some people forget.

A good point.

...food is necessary, however it can be acquired from places other than the open market.

The bigger the city, the less true that is. Even if all the parks in Manhattan were converted to agricultural fields, I doubt that it could grow enough to feed itself.

My parents do not pay a tax for water. They use a cistern. Am I thinking too far outside the box?

No, you are thinking in too small a box. You are thinking in terms of the comparatively sparsely settled, central, agriculturally rich, part of this country. The east coast is almost a solid city from Eastport to Key West. The west coast isn't as bad, however the water situation there might be even worse.

I have a friend who became disgusted with the system about 40 years ago. He lives a simple life, having burned, first, his draft card, then his social security card, and then even his driver's license. He lives completely off the grid, below the radar, etc. He can do it because there's still some room for a few to do it, but if everybody tried, there wouldn't be enough land, enough game, enough spring water, enough wood for all.

Yeah, one can still be a hermit -- but it isn't a viable solution for the entire country.

--Pete