bank secrets

[kandrathe]

I mean, eg the Hoover dam.....such a thing would never ever be possible when made using private funds. Of course only when you would have these huge mega companies......but I think we agree that those would be just as bad or worse than the federal state.

You can combine public impetus, with private investment and ownership (and maintenance). I would have no problem with the US government helping to kick start a project to build 50 new clean power plants to displace coal and oil burners, solicit investment from the private sector, and turn over control according to investment once the project was completed. In fact, the government could even "own" a portion until its original taxpayer investment was returned then sell its remaining shares. I would always design and want the government to be a "zero sum" proposition, in that they should not grow bigger every time they have an idea.

[eppie]

You can combine public impetus, with private investment and ownership (and maintenance). I would have no problem with the US government helping to kick start a project to build 50 new clean power plants to displace coal and oil burners, solicit investment from the private sector, and turn over control according to investment once the project was completed. In fact, the government could even "own" a portion until its original taxpayer investment was returned then sell its remaining shares. I would always design and want the government to be a "zero sum" proposition, in that they should not grow bigger every time they have an idea.

Of course you 'can' but it will be much more complicated than just use tax. If everybody has to decide about every small thing if he wants to participate it leaves very little time to for example go to work......or eat.

[eppie]

If you're more of a foodie (and I am), you could book a table at Per Se for years on end, order the tasting menu every night, and die of cardiac arrest long before your money ran out.

O cool, I'm a bit of a foodie myself. Let's start a new thread about this; I think I have never saw a food discussion here. (contrary to the so-manied tax discussion:))

For cardiac arrest you would be better of just to go to McD I think........Per Se uses olive oil:)

[kandrathe]

On the "rubble" issue, investing in that "rubble" with every dime to your name would have been one of the best investments you could have made, the sooner the better. Postwar growth in Europe and Japan was off the hook.

I'm sure at some point the money went there.

Getting rid of tax shelters and other dodges for the very rich would be among the best possible things you could do to improve the tax code. The more the wealthy pay, the lower taxes can be on the way up. If that's what you're arguing for, making the tax system more progressive by closing loopholes, let me lay down arms right now: we are in entire agreement on that point.

If I were your beneficent ruler; :)

I'm in favor for there to be a flatter tax structure. Some progression is fine, but I would simplify the code and also make it more complicated to allow for regional differences. In terms of rates for both income and capital gains; a) determine the "poverty line", and under that line the people alway pay 10% of income. b) determine the line for "wealthy" and under that line people always pay 15%(on the amount over the poverty line). c) above the line people always pay 20% (on the amount above the "wealthy" line). The terms "poverty" and "wealthy" need to be determined by congressional district, and would be measured by the median salary, cost of homes/rent, and other consumer prices in that area. I would implement a federal sales tax of 5% with no exceptions for anything. Any other revenue generated by the government needs to be garnered through user fees, or tariffs. I would trim many major functions from the federal government and return the power to the States, including SSI, health care, education, welfare, housing, agriculture, most of transportation (except some oversight of interstate routes, ports, airports). Again, local control on taxation is most fair. I would eliminate the special deductions for marriage, deductions for gifts/donations, and deductions for mortgages. Eliminate the classification of "non-profit" corporation, but allow churches to be tax exempt.

I would eliminate the estate tax. Mostly because it destroys family owned farms and businesses. It is a nice Utopian idea to have each person be self made, however the government becomes arbitrarily punitive while the upper class are able to avoid estate taxes through various legal maneuvers. It is a reasonable desire to pass on to ones offspring the fruits of their labors.

I would set corporate taxes at zero or a low rate equivalent to the lowest rate in the global economy, adjusting for all the positives and negatives. I wouldn't want to give any disincentives for keeping jobs local.

Government employees, including Congress, Executives, Judiciary would earn their congregational districts median salary plus or minus 10% to allow for graduated pay scales. I would repeal all laws that shield government workers from laws, and repeal all special benefits given to them other than protection while they serve (and life long protection for the President). I would limit the tenure of any elected government employee to a total of 12 years (meaning that if you served four 2 year House terms, you would no longer qualify to run for a Senate seat, President or VP).

I would require States to set campaign finance limits on each Congressional, and Senate seat at 2x median salary and fund the first half. For the Presidential Race, I would set the limit at 10x the median US salary and fund the first half. I would eliminate all political advertising on corporate radio and television. All the SPAM and junk mail laws apply to politicians as well. I would eliminate PAC's. I would require all fund raising to remain within the represented geographic boundaries (no more RNC, DNC, or billionaires buying seats in other districts, states, nations), and no contribution can exceed $1,000.

Finally, I would add an amendment that would prevent the government from intentionally spending more than it raises in revenue. At certain times of crisis (war or economic), the government may be allowed to borrow money (with a hard and fast plan for repayment).

That's off the top of my head, I'm sure I might have a few other idea as well if I pondered about it longer. Some of these are markedly controversial positions for "a libertarian", but in seeing how things like say advertising are perverted and corrupted by the market it seems best to separate State interests from corporate media. My idea of fair taxation is not to grow a basket of government services, then distribute the cost in what some people think is fair and borrow the remainder. My idea is to set a very limited number of necessary federal services, and limit taxes to what is fair.

[Jester]

O cool, I'm a bit of a foodie myself. Let's start a new thread about this; I think I have never saw a food discussion here. (contrary to the so-manied tax discussion:))

For cardiac arrest you would be better of just to go to McD I think........Per Se uses olive oil:)

I've cooked from Keller's cookbooks before. Let me tell you, never in my life have I gone through so much cream and butter, although the results are invariably delicious.

-Jester

[Jester]

I'm in favor for there to be a flatter tax structure.

If ever there was an argument for a flat tax, it's Warren Buffett's rather simple empirical point that he, and those as wealthy as he, pay less % of their income in taxes than do their secretaries. I favour less flat tax systems, but step one would be to make it *at least* progressive enough to be flat!

In terms of rates for both income and capital gains; a) determine the "poverty line", and under that line the people alway pay 10% of income. B)determine the line for "wealthy" and under that line people always pay 15%(on the amount over the poverty line). c) above the line people always pay 20% (on the amount above the "wealthy" line).

How does reducing the number of brackets help? Also, this would be a *gigantic* tax cut. Like "whoops, where did our trillions go". At the very least, you'd need to deal with the debt first.

I would implement a federal sales tax of 5% with no exceptions for anything.

Why no exception for food? Medicine? You're already making people below the poverty line pay 10% of their income. Why tax them on the basics?

On the other hand, at least this is a tax increase. That'll bring in some revenue to help pay for the gigantic drop from income taxes. Assuming you tax *everything* that is bought and sold, you get just under 5% of GDP for that.

Any other revenue generated by the government needs to be garnered through user fees, or tariffs. I would trim many major functions from the federal government and return the power to the States, including SSI, health care, education, welfare, housing, agriculture, most of transportation (except some oversight of interstate routes, ports, airports).

Right, because the individual States have proven themselves to be so much better guardians of the public trust than the Feds. (...)

Again, local control on taxation is most fair.

On the basis of what? Economic geography suggests that some regions are going to be able to collect a hell of a lot more tax than others, simply on the basis of agglomeration effects. Is it really sensible to have no inter-regional tax movement? How is letting the rich areas keep their riches, and the poor keep ther paltry tax incomes more or less fair than having the feds collect it?

I would eliminate the special deductions for marriage, deductions for gifts/donations, and deductions for mortgages. Eliminate the classification of "non-profit" corporation, but allow churches to be tax exempt.

Marriages, check. Gifts and donations, check. Mortgages, double check. (Good god that was a stupid idea.) Why eliminate non-profit corporations, but preserve tax exemptions for churches? Wouldn't that just create a systemic bias in favour of religious charity, for no better reason than that it's religious?

I would eliminate the estate tax. Mostly because it destroys family owned farms and businesses. It is a nice Utopian idea to have each person be self made, however the government becomes arbitrarily punitive while the upper class are able to avoid estate taxes through various legal maneuvers. It is a reasonable desire to pass on to ones offspring the fruits of their labors.

Why eliminate the estate tax, instead of just giving exemptions for businesses up to a certain size? Or just giving a blanket minimum exemption that would cover everyone up to a certain amount, regardless of its form? Estate taxes are one of the most efficient ways to tax enormous pools of accumulated wealth; they're just about the most progressive kind of tax you can get. Why not make them work by closing loopholes, rather than abolishing the tax and greating what amounts to a 100% loophole?

I would set corporate taxes at zero or a low rate equivalent to the lowest rate in the global economy, adjusting for all the positives and negatives. I wouldn't want to give any disincentives for keeping jobs local.

Okay, so that would cost a lot. You'd keep a lot of corporations at home, for sure, but you'd lose a gigantic revenue stream. Adjusting for positives and negatives, as you say, plenty of corporations seem to find the US an attractive place to do business, despite relatively high corporate taxation. (Loopholes may have something to do with this, but still.)

Government employees, including Congress, Executives, Judiciary would earn their congregational districts median salary plus or minus 10% to allow for graduated pay scales. I would repeal all laws that shield government workers from laws, and repeal all special benefits given to them other than protection while they serve (and life long protection for the President). I would limit the tenure of any elected government employee to a total of 12 years (meaning that if you served four 2 year House terms, you would no longer qualify to run for a Senate seat, President or VP).

You would be wrecking what little incentive there is for exceptional (definitionally, not median) people to go into government. There would be no career in it (12 year maximum) and no money in it (median income is not a heck of a lot for the best and the brightest). You would also drain the human capital pool in government automatically; as soon as people have learned the ropes, and are able to pass on knowledge to the next generation of politicians, or to move up the ranks to a higher post, you'd have booted them out forever. I'm economist enough to think this incentive system would be disastrous.

Eliminating immunities sounds good to me.

I would require States to set campaign finance limits on each Congressional, and Senate seat at 2x median salary and fund the first half. For the Presidential Race, I would set the limit at 10x the median US salary and fund the first half. I would eliminate all political advertising on corporate radio and television. All the SPAM and junk mail laws apply to politicians as well. I would eliminate PAC's. I would require all fund raising to remain within the represented geographic boundaries (no more RNC, DNC, or billionaires buying seats in other districts, states, nations), and no contribution can exceed $1,000.

Wow. That's even more draconian than what I'd do. The 2008 prez candidates spent something like a billion dollars. You'd be restricting them to half a million, cutting them down to 0.05%! Needless to say, the race would look very different. They wouldn't be able to travel, to hire staff, or to buy a single commercial (not a problem, since those are banned anyway.) At that budget, lawn signs would probably be off the table.

As for billionaires buying seats, I don't think they succeed too often at that. People tend to resent it, and no amount of money buys an election when the voters resent you.

Finally, I would add an amendment that would prevent the government from intentionally spending more than it raises in revenue. At certain times of crisis (war or economic), the government may be allowed to borrow money (with a hard and fast plan for repayment).

This really is going deep... you'd undo Alexander Hamilton's work? Go back to pre-presidential Jeffersonian ideas? Wow. The entire modern financial state would cease to exist, which might be a good thing, but it certainly would be a shock.

That's off the top of my head, I'm sure I might have a few other idea as well if I pondered about it longer. Some of these are markedly controversial positions for "a libertarian", but in seeing how things like say advertising are perverted and corrupted by the market it seems best to separate State interests from corporate media. My idea of fair taxation is not to grow a basket of government services, then distribute the cost in what some people think is fair and borrow the remainder. My idea is to set a very limited number of necessary federal services, and limit taxes to what is fair.

You seem to have a very definite way of using the term "fair". I'm not sure I understand what it is, or how you manage to escape the category of "what some people think" is fair, and place your beliefs in the category of what "is" fair.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's more a matter of having to think about everything that might go wrong and having a reasonable answer, . . .

Yes. First you have to make a complete list of the unforeseeable problems, then you have to generate solutions for each, then you have to make a complete list of the unforeseeable problems that those solutions will cause, then you have to . . .

Oh, wait, that doesn't work :whistling:

. . . observing the system operate and correcting bugs as you discover them.

A devil in this detail. Who is to do the observing and correcting? Remember that we got here by considering the trade off between state run inspection programs and state licensed inspection programs.

Let us make the following assumptions:

<blockquote>The actual cost in time, effort, equipment, personnel, etc. is the same for state run and licensed inspections.

The state run system suffers from the usual inefficiencies such as: no one in final authority, authority and responsibility not balanced, difficulty in firing incompetent workers, lack of motivation, etc.

The state licensed system need some level of supervision to make it work right.</blockquote>

Now, as the (forced) 'consumer' of this 'product', I am only concerned with its cost to me. Included in the cost is both time (e.g., the state run system has fewer locations, thus necessitating a longer drive, or is not open evening and week ends, forcing me to take time off from work) and money (the actual fees plus taxes I have to pay to support state inspectors of the licensed system).

It is not clear to me which of the two will be more expensive. Will the inefficiencies of the state run system add more to the cost than the need for inspections add to the licensed system? I think these are exactly the kinds of questions that cannot be answered easily. Or, perhaps, at all. A dynamic official in charge of the state inspection group could, perhaps, get more done with fewer people. An apathetic political appointee could get nothing done with a bigger staff. Theory is great, but how to factor in these practical matters.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I'm in favor for there to be a flatter tax structure.

I, too, am in favor of a flatter and fairer tax structure. This one is especially appealing in both its flatness and its fairness. :w00t:

--Pete

[Lissa]

Just a side note on this,

Rockefeller, who happens to be the inflation-adjusted richest man in history.

-Jester

Are you sure of this? I've seen inflation adjusted amount for both (JJ) Astor and (A) Carnegie (after selling his steel business, but before he started his endowments and charities) where they were ranked higher than Rockefeller when adjusted for inflation. They also were before Standard Oil really got going in the early 20th Century (Astor being mid 19th century and Carnegie being late 19th century and Carnegie was sitting on 1/2 Billion in the late 1880s/early 1890s when Morgan Stanely along with a large number of investors purchased his steel empire).

[Jester]

Just a side note on this,
Are you sure of this? I've seen inflation adjusted amount for both (JJ) Astor and (A) Carnegie (after selling his steel business, but before he started his endowments and charities) where they were ranked higher than Rockefeller when adjusted for inflation. They also were before Standard Oil really got going in the early 20th Century (Astor being mid 19th century and Carnegie being late 19th century and Carnegie was sitting on 1/2 Billion in the late 1880s/early 1890s when Morgan Stanely along with a large number of investors purchased his steel empire).

As with all attempts to create historically accurate indices, it's as much a guessing game as a science. However, the oracle of Wikipedia says Carnegie is second. Astor is not on the list, although I have seen him on other lists.

Regardless, Rockefeller was ludicrously, limitlessly, unfathomably rich. You could have taxed him 200% of his income, and he still would have been the richest person in the world.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If ever there was an argument for a flat tax, it's Warren Buffett's rather simple empirical point that he, and those as wealthy as he, pay less % of their income in taxes than do their secretaries. I favour less flat tax systems, but step one would be to make it *at least* progressive enough to be flat!

Some people (like Mr. Buffet) like to compare tax as a percentage of income, but the top 10% still pay 65% of the tax. The top 50% pay 96.03% of the tax revenue.

How does reducing the number of brackets help? Also, this would be a *gigantic* tax cut. Like "whoops, where did our trillions go". At the very least, you'd need to deal with the debt first.

Maybe, and maybe not. I would try to shift the burden away from only income taxes. You are correct though, the debt is an obstacle now. During Bush, we could barely hope to grow our way out of the debt. But the last quarter of the Bush presidency put the debt beyond our ability to pay back through growth. We spend more than we collect in revenue, and now, we always will. You might say, "Raise taxes", but that has shown to be a way to cut jobs and reduce revenues.

Why no exception for food? Medicine? You're already making people below the poverty line pay 10% of their income. Why tax them on the basics?

If we keep things simple, we don't need to argue about whether twinkies and viagra should be taxed or not.

Right, because the individual States have proven themselves to be so much better guardians of the public trust than the Feds. (...)

If your State does not serve you well, then vote the bums out of office and choose better public servants.

On the basis of what? Economic geography suggests that some regions are going to be able to collect a hell of a lot more tax than others, simply on the basis of agglomeration effects. Is it really sensible to have no inter-regional tax movement? How is letting the rich areas keep their riches, and the poor keep their paltry tax incomes more or less fair than having the feds collect it?

The places with more people need their revenue to take care of their own people. What we get away from are the impetus for pork to make ourselves feel that federal tax is fairly distributed to the States. (e.g. South Dakota needs an interstate highway why? Leaving quickly?) Large states end up on the short end (per capita) of federal spending.

Why eliminate non-profit corporations, but preserve tax exemptions for churches? Wouldn't that just create a systemic bias in favour of religious charity, for no better reason than that it's religious?

To preserve establishment clause of the Constitution.

Why eliminate the estate tax, instead of just giving exemptions for businesses up to a certain size? Or just giving a blanket minimum exemption that would cover everyone up to a certain amount, regardless of its form? Estate taxes are one of the most efficient ways to tax enormous pools of accumulated wealth; they're just about the most progressive kind of tax you can get. Why not make them work by closing loopholes, rather than abolishing the tax and creating what amounts to a 100% loophole?

I want the system to be very clear. To start sloshing around with allowing some, and disallowing others becomes arbitrary. I don't think it is possible to allow people the freedom to spend their money, and also close the loopholes for inheritance. They move it into rare paintings, or other collectible goods that cannot be tracked, or can be tucked away in home safes or safety deposit boxes. Heck, the most popular vehicle for the ultra rich is to start a non-profit charitable foundation with your heirs in charge of the disbursements. They of course draw large salaries, and may not ever disperse any funds to charity.

Okay, so that would cost a lot. You'd keep a lot of corporations at home, for sure, but you'd lose a gigantic revenue stream. Adjusting for positives and negatives, as you say, plenty of corporations seem to find the US an attractive place to do business, despite relatively high corporate taxation. (Loopholes may have something to do with this, but still.)

You would more than make up for the loss of corporate tax with the revenue from the increase in GDP.

You would be wrecking what little incentive there is for exceptional (definitionally, not median) people to go into government. There would be no career in it (12 year maximum) and no money in it (median income is not a heck of a lot for the best and the brightest).

We need to get out of the mind set that serving as a representative of the people is a career. You can be a career public servant if you like, but your salary increases will come by raising the standard of living for everyone.

You would also drain the human capital pool in government automatically; as soon as people have learned the ropes, and are able to pass on knowledge to the next generation of politicians, or to move up the ranks to a higher post, you'd have booted them out forever. I'm economist enough to think this incentive system would be disastrous.

Our best and brightest grads need to be dynamic contributors to the economy, not feeding at the trough of government. Look at our politicians, look at the mess the USA is in, and tell me you need an IQ greater than 100 to do what they have done.

Wow. That's even more draconian than what I'd do. The 2008 prez candidates spent something like a billion dollars. You'd be restricting them to half a million, cutting them down to 0.05%! Needless to say, the race would look very different. They wouldn't be able to travel, to hire staff, or to buy a single commercial (not a problem, since those are banned anyway.) At that budget, lawn signs would probably be off the table.

Campaigns need to be shorter, not run over a 4 year period. Candidates need to communicate what their ideas are, rather than continuously drag down their opponents. I don't think it should take a billion dollars to run for President.

As for billionaires buying seats, I don't think they succeed too often at that. People tend to resent it, and no amount of money buys an election when the voters resent you.

They don't get caught doing it too often. But it is quite common for motivated wealthy people to fund the campaigns for the people they want in power, which is not representative democracy when they don't live in the geography of the candidate they are funding.

This really is going deep... you'd undo Alexander Hamilton's work? Go back to pre-presidential Jeffersonian ideas? Wow. The entire modern financial state would cease to exist, which might be a good thing, but it certainly would be a shock.

The alternative is to have what we have now, a USA that must choose now between printing money causing the regressive tax of inflation, raise more tax revenue further damaging the economy, or defaulting on its debt obligations which again will destroy the economy.

You seem to have a very definite way of using the term "fair". I'm not sure I understand what it is, or how you manage to escape the category of "what some people think" is fair, and place your beliefs in the category of what "is" fair.

My definition of fair puts the burden of paying for the federal government at everyones feet. This makes citizenship important, it makes voting important, and it makes participation important. Should their be a safety net, sure by all means implement and fund that at the State level. Fair to me, means that you get what you pay for, and you only pay for what you get.

[Jester]

I think most of what's going to be said has been said here. However, one point sticks out at me: the Laffer curve.

Do you really believe that reducing corporate taxes to zero will increase tax revenue? That increasing taxes will reduce revenue? You say "it has been shown", but I don't think it actually has. There is a theoretical argument that, past a certain point, taxation reduces revenue, but we* do not appear to be near that point.

Now, any tax is going to change behaviour, so higher taxes will almost certainly means the government gets a larger 'slice' of a slightly smaller 'pie'. And lower taxes mean the pie will get slightly larger, at the cost of a substantially smaller government slice. But the slice itself is almost certainly going to be larger with higher taxes and smaller with lower: more taxes is more revenue. To assume otherwise is to assume you can have your cake and eat it too, and we all know that's a lie. ;)

-Jester

*we meaning any major western nation, especially but not only the US.

[weakwarrior]

To assume otherwise is to assume you can have your cake and eat it too, and we all know that's a lie.

I decided to test this out. I went out and bought a piece of cake. Then I ate it. It's perfectly doable. I should, however, point out that I didn't buy or eat a whole cake, so further experiments may be necessary. Hopefully, I will run those in the near future. This extension of my experimentation will require a government grant though...

[Tal]

I decided to test this out. I went out and bought a piece of cake. Then I ate it. It's perfectly doable. I should, however, point out that I didn't buy or eat a whole cake, so further experiments may be necessary. Hopefully, I will run those in the near future. This extension of my experimentation will require a government grant though...

It doesn't work with pieces of cake. You have to buy an entire cake and eat it all in one sitting. Sorry but your grant has been denied.

[--Pete]

Hi,

We spend more than we collect in revenue, and now, we always will.

The first half of that statement is true, but the second half is speculation. There is a lot that can be done to reduce government spending. And an economic recovery is entirely possible, even if it takes awhile, so revenues can increase. So to assume that the expenses will forever more be greater than the revenue is, I think, a bit extreme.

You might say, "Raise taxes", but that has shown to be a way to cut jobs and reduce revenues.

Jester has already addressed this. Revenue is determined by the size of the pie and the fraction the government takes. The government has direct control of the fraction it takes since that is just the tax rate (modified by exceptions, etc.) But it only has indirect control over the size of the pie. Tax rate is only one factor there. There are many other factors, not the least of which is the overall outlook of the population.

If we keep things simple, we don't need to argue about whether twinkies and viagra should be taxed or not.

True. However, if we keep things simple, we often keep things wrong. Newton is simpler than Einstein, but it doesn't make him more correct. It was Einstein who pointed out that we should "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." I think some of your ideas cross that 'too simple' line.

If your State does not serve you well, then vote the bums out of office and choose better public servants.

Not a valid argument for decentralization since exactly the same thing can be said about the federal government. And I don't think that the incumbent advantage is any less (and probably more) at the state level than it is at the federal. I think you are blaming the government for the failure of the people. As long as the majority of the population votes (if they vote at all) on the basis of party affiliation and name recognition, then I don't much care where the power lies, it will be misused. Since the majority lack the interest, the temperament, and (I'm beginning to suspect) the intelligence to inform themselves, I expect that the condition will not change. In Renaissance Florence, an opponent of democracy called it "a form of government where opinions are counted but not weighed." The charge still stands.

The places with more people need their revenue to take care of their own people.

The cost of some services (schools) scales with the population. The cost of others (roads) doesn't.

South Dakota needs an interstate highway why? Leaving quickly?

Never mind South Dakota (where an argument for 'connectivity' might be made), what about Hawaii? Actually, the whole interstate highway system was a bill of goods sold to the federal government by the trucking industry and the teamsters union. Proposed as a military highway system (in which purpose it fails, since the original requirements are inadequate for some modern military hardware) it caught the fancy of Eisenhower, then in office. It is one of the few decisions he made that I completely disagree with. But when Ahnold's army decides to leave California and conquer New York, it might finally justify its cost. :w00t:

To preserve establishment clause of the Constitution.

So, in order to avoid giving religion preferential treatment, we should give it preferential treatment? First, put religion on the same basis as any other not for profit institution. Then do as you wish, if you can't see the need and benefit of such organizations. But destroying, or even severely hampering, groups such as the Red Cross, the ASPCA, the ACLU, the American Cancer Association, etc., because some groups take advantage of the non profit laws is, IMO, an extreme baby/bathwater move. A true simplistic solution that, maybe, could better be solved by something less simple -- possibly a few regulations and enforcement of same.

Heck, the most popular vehicle for the ultra rich is to start a non-profit charitable foundation with your heirs in charge of the disbursements. They of course draw large salaries, and may not ever disperse any funds to charity.

I think I read that book. Something by Ludlum, isn't it? :whistling:

You would more than make up for the loss of corporate tax with the revenue from the increase in GDP.

Again, too simplistic. Corporations set up their headquarters and their other facilities on the basis of many factors, of which taxes is but one. If the taxes are very high, then they become the dominating factor. As they get lower, they become less important. While removing them completely does make them, by default, meaningless, that does not mean that it is necessary to do so.

We need to get out of the mind set that serving as a representative of the people is a career. You can be a career public servant if you like, but your salary increases will come by raising the standard of living for everyone.

You propose a maximum total time for elected office, then you say that you can be a career public servant. Do you mean in civil service? Because they are not the ones who actually make the decisions that matter. Again, I fear you are seeing a simple (and wrong) solution to a complex problem. Do we really want our government to be run by amateurs, to get rid of our leaders just as they are developing the experience to do the job right? Is governing so simple that a person can learn it in a few days? And, if so, why do so many do it so poorly?

Personally, I think the twenty-second (lame duck) amendment was a mistake. Most of the problem, as I see it, is the incumbent advantage. Another problem, again as I see it, is that elected officials are distracted from doing their jobs during the (ever lengthening) campaign season. Both those problems could be solved by making it illegal for a person holding a public office at any level) to run for another public office until the term for which he was elected has expired (e.g., no resigning a senate seat to run for president). That would mean that a person could not be reelected to the same office twice in a row. It would permit a person of ability to be an elected official for life (with gaps, of course). It would eliminate the incumbent advantage.

Our best and brightest grads need to be dynamic contributors to the economy, not feeding at the trough of government.

Yeah, we sure don't want people of Jefferson's, of Madison's, of Hamilton's, of Lincoln's potential to be in government.

Look at our politicians, look at the mess the USA is in, and tell me you need an IQ greater than 100 to do what they have done.

So, since morons got us into the mess, we don't need anything better than a moron to get us out of it? "I think you better think it out again." B)

Campaigns need to be shorter, not run over a 4 year period. Candidates need to communicate what their ideas are, rather than continuously drag down their opponents. I don't think it should take a billion dollars to run for President.

Give the nation a better class of voters and you would probably get a better class of both politicians and campaigns. What *you* think does not matter to the politician who wants to be elected. What works does. As they say, "nothing succeeds like success."

Fair to me, means that you get what you pay for, and you only pay for what you get.

So, insurance is not fair by your definition. You only pay a couple of hundred a year for your home fire insurance. If your house doesn't burn down, you don't get anything back for what you paid and if it does, you get back many times what you paid. The concept of spreading the risk fails your test of fairness, as does the concept of spreading the common costs.

Or, perhaps, you need a less simple definition of 'get' than I've assumed here. Such as 'get' an educated population, 'get' a decent transportation system, 'get' good police, fire, emergency services. 'Get' all those, even if you personally 'get' none of them.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I decided to test this out. I went out and bought a piece of cake. Then I ate it. It's perfectly doable.

Well done:)

Yes, details *are* important. "Have your cake and eat it too" is possible; "Eat your cake and have it too" is not.

--Pete

[weakwarrior]

Should their be a safety net, sure by all means implement and fund that at the State level. Fair to me, means that you get what you pay for, and you only pay for what you get.

People in this thread have kind of already made this point, but why is state so much better than country. Every state has richer and poorer counties, every county has richer and poorer cities, every city... Any organization which contains more than one person and collects taxes will inevitably end up helping one part more than the other when they use said tax. In addition, perhaps, beauracracies have economies of scale (this might just mean that maximum inefficiency is easier to obtain with larger size, but seriously).

[weakwarrior]

Hi,
Well done:)

Yes, details *are* important. "Have your cake and eat it too" is possible; "Eat your cake and have it too" is not.

--Pete

I´m not actually recommending you follow this link, but just for your information http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGh7iWuoyJo

[Jester]

Hi,
Well done:)

Yes, details *are* important. "Have your cake and eat it too" is possible; "Eat your cake and have it too" is not.

--Pete

I think this involves swapping an implicit "then" into the phrase.

"Have your cake and then eat it" is possible, and "eat your cake and then have it" is impossible.

Having your cake simultaneously with eating should be impossible as well, although you could perhaps quibble over eaten and uneaten parts of the cake.

However, the phrase appears to be retrospective: once all actions are complete, it will either be the case that you do not have your cake, or it will be the case that you actually didn't eat it.

Ah, nitpicking. :D

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think most of what's going to be said has been said here. However, one point sticks out at me: the Laffer curve.

Do you really believe that reducing corporate taxes to zero will increase tax revenue? That increasing taxes will reduce revenue? You say "it has been shown", but I don't think it actually has. There is a theoretical argument that, past a certain point, taxation reduces revenue, but we* do not appear to be near that point.

Now, any tax is going to change behaviour, so higher taxes will almost certainly means the government gets a larger 'slice' of a slightly smaller 'pie'. And lower taxes mean the pie will get slightly larger, at the cost of a substantially smaller government slice. But the slice itself is almost certainly going to be larger with higher taxes and smaller with lower: more taxes is more revenue. To assume otherwise is to assume you can have your cake and eat it too, and we all know that's a lie. ;)

This video series pretty much documents my feelings about the Laffer curve.

Cato Institute - Laffer Curve Part I
Part II
Part III

It's pretty much common sense that if you raise the price (even of government), then people will have less money to buy other things (goods, or investments). The question is that if corporate taxes in the US are zero, will the GDP grow enough (sales of goods and services that are taxed at 5%) to offset the reduction in direct taxation. Corporations will still pay the 5% tax when they buy things, and another small tax when they export or import things. I'm betting that the GDP pie will get very big, and a small sliver of the big pie will be larger than the 30% slice of the smaller pie.

Secondly, we can see that corporations are leaving business hostile areas and being headquartered in places who have low or zero taxes (amongst other incentives). It's happening across Europe, and its beginning to happen in North America. One must only look to where businesses are booming (Ireland, Hong Kong, etc.) and consider why that happens. Consider also the US state of Delaware, which houses over 50% of LLP/LLC/PLC entities. In that case, you lose all the pie.

Is it hard to imagine that business will boom most where profits can be maximized, and business will flee from places where they are over-regulated, over-taxed, and otherwise abused by the government. Now don't read that as unregulated. No one wants a poisoned pie either.

Finally, the Laffer curve is not a stable line, which means that depending on the economy the point where taxation becomes a disincentive to invest will move up and down. I intentionally aim at a point lower than the peak point (28%) identified by Laffer, but high enough to collect a reasonable revenue stream for funding government services.