do you admit or deny that the current system promotes a scenario where politicians buy the votes of the many by promising them that "others" will bear the burden of paying for the increased spending?
and its income taxes that serve as the basis of most of the political discussion.
right now its a house of cards that is gonna collapse and the only way to stop that is to make increased government spending painful for everyone, not just the 2% who cannot outvote the people who continue to enable expansion of the government
I don't deny that we're in trouble, and that part of the reason is how taxes are handled. It isn't the only part though... spending is the other half. The way we allow politicians to spend other people's money to buy votes through pork and special-intrest subsidy is at least half the issue.
Progressive tax has the problem of people carrying unequal burdens of the cost of government and public works.
Flat tax has the problem that it will impact the ability of the not-so-prosperous to even survive, if the rate is set high enough to support the kind of government spending that has been going on for most of a century, or even half that much.... and the kind of budget cuts (30-60%) that would make a flat tax a bearable burden by the poor are probably just not realistic.... I mean, there's no reason to believe it is actually going to happen.
which one ultimately destroys society? not the flat tax-
LoLz. "destroys society"...Don't hold back on that over the top rhetoric.
you deny that the current system is suggesting anything else?
I don't think we are headed for destruction of society.
so we have a government that has created massive entitlement programs that in turn have created massive entitlement addicts who have become dependent on those entitlements. those entitlements continue to grow. so where is the money going to come from?
Did I ever say reform was not needed? However, complete overhauls probably are not needed, just a steady change. Your panic is not warranted.
edify me as to what reforms you think can work
and I am not panicking. I have the means to move to areas where the creeping crud of socialism is not imminent. The fact that most of us who are in the top 2% can do that is another reason why the poop's gonna hit the fan the way things are going.
I think that every year when the economy has positive growth, we need to cut total spending by 2 %. That won't be too bad at first, but will rapidly mean that pretty much everything has to be cut, and it will get hard. I use the positive growth test because when in bad economic times, stimulative spending can be effective. It worked for Reagan after all(plus without positive growth it would become increasingly difficult to so). With cuts to spending combined with increased revenue as the economy grows, it should take a surprisingly short time to balance the books(though I don't know how long exactly).
Needless to say, this would probably require some tweaking, but is a pretty rough guide as to how I would handle things. No tax cuts until the budget is balanced, as I don't think tax rates now are so high that they significantly lower any ones standard of living.
good luck with that. the way the dems win elections is to promise more spending and promising those who get the handouts they won't pay any more taxes.
The way repubs win elections is promise more spending and less taxes and fiscal responsibility...
not always true-for example, here in Ohio Boehner won't take earmarks and the biggest criticism of soon to be re-elected to the first district (Steve Chabot) was that he didn't bring enough pork back to his district. Soon to win the senate seat, Rob Portman is a cost cutter as well.
raising taxes is not fiscally responsible if those tax hikes don't really result in additonal income and spending is increased
I think you missed the point, which was to respond to an overgeneralization with an overgeneralization.
which one ultimately destroys society? not the flat tax-
WHile I haven't been in the army, from what I understand, comradery is what compels soldiers to fight. While there are a fair amount of patriots, this bond holds units together. So, theoretically, you just need to develop these bonds.
Hell no! We won't go.
Absolutely not.
I would also (if it were up to me) do away with the contracts the way they are and allow service member to quit UNLESS they are in a warzone.
If a war is for a good cause people WILL volunteer.
It could be tied to healthcare....if you serve, you get a tax credit on your insurance premiums, the amount would be based on type of service and duration of service.I support some kind of compulsory service military being one option.
Wouldn't that severely cripple and bankrupt the country? You would have a **** load of people joining the military because they like their health care plan and benefits and then leave as soon as a war/conflict is about to start?
I guess they must have not had to draft anyone in WWI and WWII.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?