Issue 282 Bound by Greed February 28, 2014

Have you heard of a person bound by Greed? We are bound by greed as it is part of the virtue of selfishness. Greed is capable of creating great things in society that can be a positive. But it is all a manner of what you do with it.

Greed: Typically greed is considered a negative, and it can be if it is left uncontrolled. It is neither an emotion nor a vice. It is an inbred fault in our human design. It is a disease that cannot be gotten rid of. It is selfishness, desire, gluttony and more. It cannot be escaped. We have greed bread into our very core.

Examples: Let's think about the civil rights movements. Are they not motivated by a form of greed? The desire to gain rights and privileges in society is a form of greed for rights and privileges are another form of wealth are they not? Those in favor of civil rights are just as greedy as those who stand above those seeking those rights. Those who already hold the status of a first class citizen do not wish to loose that power and authority as the status quo is shaken to its very core. Both sides are greedy.

It is again the same in war. We know that those invading another country do it for the acquisition of money, power, natural resources, and other various means including religion. But are not the defenders just as greedy trying to keep their territory all to themselves? They are greedy as their very survival as a nation and a people hinges on protecting their rights and privileges acquired through their society and their culture.

Good greed versus bad greed: Greed to protect oneself from harm and to gain freedom is good. However, greed at the expense of someone else is bad. This is where a moral compass comes in. A person without a moral compass will obey the worst forms of greed and sacrifice all for the sack of gaining power and wealth. Those with a moral compass will however think upon their actions and choose the best method that does not sacrifice the other parts of their humanity to do so. So what is greed?

Conclusion: Greed is the natural survival instinct that we all share. The same goes with gluttony, lust and other terms we would like to distance ourselves from. However, Ayn Rand summed it all up into a simple word "selfishness." Unchecked the aspects of selfishness like greed will run rampant as we all fight like the animals we are to maintain our safety and security. However, a moral compass and a set of values will help protect against this. With these checks upon ourselves we can protect ourselves from becoming inhuman monsters which enables all of our ambitions to finally counteract each other peacefully rather than violently as mankind's nature dictates. We are bound by greed and our only cure is self control. Good luck.

Issue 281 Ends Justify the Means? February 27, 2014

Do the ends really justify the means? Can they ever be justified? I don't think so. Time for another discussion.

Means to an end: We have always heard the phrase ends justify the means, but that is not true. Does sacrificing ones friendships, family or another person’s livelihood really justify an end result? Of course not. For one, you are isolating yourself if you sacrifice your family and friends. If you sacrifice another person’s livelihood, then you should hopefully feel guilty (otherwise you are probably pond scum). So you can isolate yourself, you can harm others, but in the end, was it worth it? Was it worth the sacrifice to harm all those people and yourself? It becomes easier if you are affecting total strangers, but that can only happen if we forget to place ourselves in that very same position that we will be placing them in. Even then, there is no guarantee that the end result will be the desired one, let alone reached. So again, is it all worth the sacrifice?

Risk versus this mentality: There is a big difference between the ends justifying the means and risk itself. Risk is something that is calculated and meant to gain something significant without loss if at all possible. The mind set of the "ends justifying the means" means you are willing sacrifice all for the end result. So if you fail in risk, then you did not properly prep for the possibility of failure. With ends justifying the means, it means just continue sacrificing everything until the desired result is gained.

Us today: I feel like most of the United States if not the world has fallen into this cruel and heartless mind set. Sorry to say, but the Wall street bail outs should not have happened for there should have never been need of such crappily written laws if the banks actually thought about the sacrifices they would have to make to achieve their wealth. Much of welfare I feel would not be necessary if parents thought about addiction to drugs, alcoholism, and proper spending choices over their own immediate gratification. This too is ends justifying the means, taking a small immediate happiness now at the sacrifice of the future of the household. If politicians thought about how their laws and taxes affected businesses, and the economy, we all might be a lot richer rather than perpetuating divisions in society to maintain political power. Sad is it not?

Conclusion: Our society, while technologically advanced, has regressed socially. We no longer use calculated risks, but instead use a mentality of acceptable sacrifices to get what we want. I cannot accept such a mind set which is why I plead with you, be conscious of how you achieve your goals in life. The journey to your goal is equally if not more important than the goal itself.

Issue 280 No choice but to think February 26, 2014

You thought you had a choice didn't you. Maybe you thought you can just skim by and not even have to work a single brain cell. Sorry buddy, flex them brain cells, cause you got no choice and never did.

You're always thinking: Our brain is a wondrous organ. It operates our entire body and keeps it working for as long as we last. It stores memories and allows us to process information. We take in so much of the world around us and yet we don't even realize the brain is working on our behalf to understand it all. But we are not vegetables. We have to move and feel emotion. Survival is paramount and thus is human interaction. Human interaction breeds conversation and thus you think some more. There is no excuse to be had as you will be forced to think no matter what.

What should you think about?: That's right; I'm asking, what should we all think about. The weather is good for thinking about when to go out based on what outside activities we wish to do. What food to eat based on what your body needs is another. But what about things that are not mundane. Not fun or happy. Things that can make you sad or depressed. These things need to be thought about too. Locking yourself away and thinking just about what you can see hear and feel is not enough. You must think of the things that keep you from being ignorant and thus taken advantage of. You may not like it, but people naturally seek to control and manipulate others. As such, you must counter those acts to control you with deep and purposeful thought.

Power of thought: Dreams are a collection of ideas given form. But all these ideas are thoughts. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did not originally want to be a civil rights leader. He was uncomfortable with the "thought" of having so many rely on him and his leadership. But he had no choice but to think. That thought process was on how to lead the civil rights movement to success in uniting the people of all races, colors, and creeds in America. He was forced to think and thus looked to examples like Gandhi and Jesus Christ who also had no choice but to think.

George Washington was forced to think. He had a fiery temper when angered, but it was out of frustration and failure. Washington's thought process went from a British officer, to General of the Continental army and finally (yet reluctantly) as President of the United States. His faith guided his thoughts. Martha his wife guided his thoughts. The future of the nation and what was needed to protect and preserve it were his guide posts in his thought processes. President Washington had no choice but to think.

Conclusion: We have no choice but to think. There is no excuse for ignorance and the bliss that follows for that is tantamount to slavery. It is slavery not to think as then we allow others to make decisions for us in the same manner as a parent to a new born child. Thomas Jefferson said it best when he wrote that letter to his son: "question with boldness, for surely God wants inspired questions over blind faith..." This quote means question everything! Do not be satisfied with the answers that are given, but think on the answers given and the information you have acquired. Thinking is a virtue and a freedom that is impossible to take away. You may question God, any authority, and even your own beliefs for you are meant to. It refreshes and secures yourself from ignorance and protects you from those that would abuse your lack of knowledge. Questioning is thinking, and coming up with life's answers is also thinking. Stop doubting yourself with thoughts of "my ideas mean nothing" for your thoughts hold value to you. You will think and you will not be given a choice in that, but it is up to you to determine what to think and as such what has enough value to think about.

Issue 279 Created equal February 25, 2014

 
We are created equal. It does not matter if you think God did it, a bunch of gods, aliens or a spontaneous spark that created life. The fact is that we are born equals. However, life is what removes that equality. Let's discuss.

Created: When we are born, we have no knowledge of the world or anything save for basic survival instincts. We are dependant on others for survival, and are just starting to grasp that we are even alive in the first place. This ignorance of social clicks, race, hatred and even pride and love are what helps keep that equality for a time. You own nothing when you are born for you have no say over your own affairs. As such when sperm hits the egg, you’re created as an equal to everyone else.

Unequal: What makes us unequal are life's circumstances. A person hitting the lottery, a man gains social status, a person commits a crime and goes to jail. Every choice and action determines our value in the world. Artificial things like race, nationality and such can and will cause divisions. Not to mention some negative choices can be turned into positives, while positive ones can be turned into negatives. So after birth, once you begin to learn about the world around you and the circumstances in life that you are born into, you stop being equal and start being an individual.

Return to equality: There is one great equalizer that returns all to equality. That equalizer is death. Just as we are born ignorant which keeps us equal for a time, we just simply die. Death is the only guarantee we have in this life and makes us all return to equality once again as we participate in the cycle of life and death. We cannot escape, with the sole solace being that we can at least try to leave some sort of legacy behind. It cannot be stopped for in death, you cannot take your money and power with you.

Conclusion: That's right, you're born equal, and return to equality in death. If you believe in heaven as I do, prepare yourself as God is the sole ruler there and what God says goes. In death you have no power and in life you acquire power over yourself. These accumulations of power over ones own will is what grants us inequality. As such, while God created us as equals, we have acquired the ability to be unequal, and that inequality being the freedom of choice is freedom itself. Keep rising above what life hands you all.

Issue 278 The General Welfare February 24, 2014

The General Welfare clause is from Article 1 section 8 of the United States Constitution. In this wording, people have taken it to mean providing welfare to the poor, the downtrodden and others who are deemed a charity case. But that is entirely different than what it was intended to mean. Let’s look at the modernist view versus the actual meaning.

Modernist view: As stated above, the modernists' takes the wording and takes it to mean that anyone who would need some sort of aid deserves to be helped by the Federal government. The reason they take it to mean this way is because the section states "to provide for the general welfare." Modern people take welfare to mean handouts and thus they use it to justify their argument that the Federal government should provide some sort of relief to the needy.

Actual meaning: Let's read the whole clause within Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Firstly this does not specify what welfare is. Welfare then did not have the exact same meaning it does today. Welfare today is a handout by a government to help the poor stay afloat (though sometimes it is abused). However, the welfare of the past was more akin to advocating good acts and deeds and things they felt were important. So things like the purchase of the Louisiana territory can be considered part of the general welfare for it expanded the United States and gave us a major shipping rout and ports on the Mississippi river. Marriage and charitable exceptions in the tax code are another example, as the American Republic saw these acts as a benefit to society. So, general welfare is less about giving tax dollars away, and more about purchasing and advocating for positive things in society. The word welfare is in reference to how people are fairing while general means everyone as a collective group. As such, the acts that occurred through this clause must be applicable to everyone’s welfare and benefit.

Conclusion: Never has this clause been meant to serve as a justification for the Federal government to overstep its authority and provide direct aid to American citizens. With all respect to the modernist thinkers, the only place where any welfare should be distributed is at the local level exclusively. The Federal government, and even the State governments can and have always provided blanket approaches to provide welfare aid, but as you can tell by the history of the welfare apparatus, it does not work. Our founders envisioned a nation based on laws and separations of powers. It is not only the Federal government that has its powers split internally, but also to divide up the responsibility of which level of government does what. Local handles the poor, execution of State and Federal laws when applicable and basic infrastructure. States were to take care of writing criminal law, enforce law in places between towns and cities and restrict or promote growth of population centers by determining their territorial limits. Finally, the Federal government handled all foreign trade and relations, common defense and other specific matters as listed in the United States Constitution. There is more to all three levels of government, but you get the general idea. Basically, welfare of the individual is out of the purview of the Federal government’s power. So that's it. Hope you enjoyed the explanation of what that clause really means and use it to get America back on the right track.

Issue 277 Future of actors/artists February 21, 2014

Yesterday it was all about cinema, but today it is the actors and artists themselves. Here are the trends and my predictions for their future.

Effects artists: With the advent of digital technology many traditional effects and make-up artist lost their jobs in the movie industry. As such, they moved on to alternative businesses where they can make use of their craft. Effects artists have been helping the military recreate battlefields and combat situations to highest possible degree minus death itself. They are also using their craft for shows on Broadway and circuses. Basically live performances are gaining new talent with respect to stage design and execution of their craft. Stunt men and women now fill niche roles in live performances as well. In addition, they may help car safety and other scientists study the effects of car crashes and such on the human body by replicating the disasters in the lab. Make-up artists have Halloween, and the day of the dead celebrations as money makers as they turn ordinary people and Six Flags workers into monsters and ghouls. Let us not forget that they too aid in live performances as they can do the make-up of actors and performers who prefer the stage over film. Basically, the misfortune of the people in cinema has been a boon to all of us and classical performance industry and peoples every day lives.

Actors: With my prediction that film will slowly replace these men and women with digitized avatars they will gravitate back to the stage like Broadway, and similar theaters. Movie houses are struggling, but the traditional stage still stands firm with its actors and story lines. Therefore, the raw talent of these actors and actresses will still be seen on stage, but in a more traditional setting over some movie. Others may gravitate to voice acting as some of the early avatars may be too electronic or emotionless to be useful. With that in mind we may see more actors switch to voice acting as well. Even radio is a place for actors to practice their craft as they can take part in radio dramas like the recent radio theater about Sir Frances Drake the pirate, titled "Under Drakes Flag." So actors will not disappear at all, but merely change where they will show up to light up the stage.

Movie theaters: To stay relevant, movie theaters will need to adapt. Already, some are doing simulcast events for plays, and even business conferences. But this may not be enough. So they will need to adapt to have stage performances as well. I expect to see small rock concerts, and plays being held in the same venue which can easily be converted into a movie theater as well. They even may become auction houses as well for items that can fit through the stage door. All this will make up for that lost revenue from a slowly dying film industry that seems to not quite get it yet.

Conclusion: Just like vinyl records, actors, make-up artists and other movie professionals are here to stay. They will gain niche roles and wow us with their presence once again. Sure we may have a more traditional movie with actors now and again in the same way that we have black and white and silent movies from time to time. But let us face it, the entertainment industry in my opinion is changing for the better as I believe these evolutionary changes will make talent more valuable while at the same time giving the masses even better stories to watch and unfold.

Issue 276 Future of Cinema February 20, 2014

The future of cinema is being altered as we speak. Soon actors will be redundant just as the same way scenery is being made redundant via digital technology. So how is this all going to work?

Digital scenes: Already, many movies use digital backgrounds for their movies. This cuts down dramatically on production costs and man power. Now, television shows are experimenting with the same technology (like Sci-Fi’s Sanctuary) as it not only improves, but is becoming so inexpensive that a person with a cell phone camera and some digital editing equipment can use the same technology and techniques on the cheap. Soon, location shoots may become simply stored file footage to be manipulated by digital artists. This thus relegates old, traditional shoots to places they have no file footage on, or for documentarians.

Digital actors: Even now, actors can be replaced by digital ones. Slowly but surely as using actors becomes more expensive, movie companies are going to be looking into alternatives to bring people to the box office. Most go to movies now for the actors, but a growing trend has people watching movies for the story line like in the old days. Many of the highest grossing films are digital animation like the Toy Story films, Cars and the like. We will see further development of this as we can make avatars that look like real people, but with the advantage of having them do their own stunts. There is even technology that can have them have their own unique voices, sing and even interact with people via programs. This will be similar to the digital girlfriends and the Vocaloids (digital avatars that sing) that have become popular in Asian countries. As such, these digital actors and singers may even have their own followings in the same way as a traditional actor would. All this will cut costs on development over time and thus cause a dramatic changeover in the movie industry.

Who gets paid the big bucks: With actors and actresses all but done away with on the big screen, digital affects artists who use digital tools will gain the big bucks. This will be especially so with those who own a particular digital actor. Those who own a digital actor are those who created an avatar with a particular personality. So their ownership makes these digital agents very important. The better an artist is at the quality of the movie or avatar the more money they make (let alone popularity). Also, writers will get a major boost as it is their stories that are being told, not the actors who are making the movie popular. As such, the writers themselves will become as big as actors are today as well.

Conclusion: This is one of the scenarios I see coming with the age of digital cinema. As the movie industry needs to get more people into theaters (a dying business unto itself) they will switch to making cheaper movies that can be easily put on television as well. So cheap and effective movies are going to be the norm. Digitizing as much as possible is what is helping to make this possible. It is going to be interesting seeing how the entertainment industry adapts to our changing world.

Issue 275 Libertarian Conspiracy February 19, 2014

Yes, the Libertarians like myself are plotting. It is a plan that will appeal to your very heart and soul. That plan I will reveal here and now. So sit back and enjoy.

The plot: Libertarians believe in one essential truth, you can never have enough freedom. As such, we are conspiring to give you as much freedom as humanly possible without us descending into anarchy. To do this, we wish to remove as much of governments influence upon you as possible. Our reasoning is simple. Government is an oppressive body that suppresses freedom as it concentrates power to absorb all your liberties. Meanwhile, we libertarians realize that much of what government does can or already is being done in the private sector of the economy. So who needs all this extra crap that we have to pay for via taxes when all we really need is basic law enforcement to protect from the obviously wrongful acts and a military to protect us from foreign invasion (even this though is tentative). But how do we intend to accomplish this.

The how: Libertarians have infiltrated both parties in an attempt to coerce the leadership to our views. In the Republican party of the United States we have maintained an attitude toward economic freedom which empowers individuals to rise above their economic standing so you all can become rich via your own power. When the Republicans turned on those principles, we left them for the Tea Party to embrace Conservatives who believe in many of the same values of freedom.

In the Democratic Party in the U.S. we maintain our dedication toward social freedom. Here we desire to remove laws that punish personal choices in life for we abide by the golden rule, do no harm to others and none should befall you. As such, if you are not going to harm anyone but yourself, then there is no need to stop a person from acting in accordance to their own individual will. The Progressives in the Democratic Party thought they had us when they infiltrated us when we were still calling ourselves liberals, but we shall have the last laugh. No communist ideology like the Progressives can ever survive as they always resort to tyranny in the end, which in turn cases that tiny spark to burst into a mighty flame.

Conclusion: We Libertarians may not always agree, but we do agree on one thing. Freedom is the source of all prosperity in the world and that mutual respect is the only way to preserve that freedom. So our mission is to give you all more freedom than you can shake a stick at. Stay free my friends.

Issue 274 Separatists February 18, 2014

What is a separatist? Why do they want to separate? Let’s answer these questions.

Separatist: A separatist is a person who wishes to have their region of land separated from a particular governments influence. So this can mean wanting to have your province gain self rule or to separate from a country completely and become an independent State. Examples of this are how some people of Long Island (consisting of a number of counties) of New York State want to become an independent State. In short they want to be the 51st State while separating from the rest of New York on account of taxes and their values not being represented. Other separatists exist in countries like Belgium where one part is deeply influenced by their French neighbors while the other is influenced by their German neighbors. This has caused cultural divisions which have some in that country thinking it should be split in two. So this is a separatist, a person who wants independence or self rule from another governing body.

Reasons to separate: The reasons really do vary. Long Island wants to separate due to taxation in a similar manner as the original 13 colonies did when they separated from British control in the American Revolution. In Belgium it is a cultural rift. Parts of California and Oregon States want to become their own country as they feel ignored by their State governments due to population size and geographical differences. Similarly, there are parts of States that are literally dead zones to interstate traffic and are thus ignored by State governments. Portugal separated from Spain based on Language and cultural identities that gained enough support to warrant their own independent country. So basically, it comes down to culture, representation and money.

Success rate: From all that I have read, the success rate for separation is very low. Typically war ends up breaking out (see America’s civil war) and the group trying to become independent usually looses. Long Island (where I live in New York) will never be free of New York unless the State legislature lets us go (which is not happening any time soon as we provide allot of money in taxes to the State capital). Quite frankly you have a better success rate in trying to transform your government by changing things from within.

Conclusion: People in America are made fun of for being a separatist. But in truth they are separatists because of their pride as a member of a community. It is also a warning sign that indicates that the country may be going in the wrong direction if their is enough people saying I want to leave. So these people should not be ignored or ridiculed, but listened too to find out what exactly they feel is wrong in the country. Separatists are a warning sign of the possibility of bad things to come. Embrace them to understand them or face the possible consequences

Issue 273 Business income tax alternative February 17, 2014

Finishing off the theme of taxation (I think I said that in the last issue, oh well) we are going to look at another model inspired by Herman Cains 999 plan and Paul Ryan's budget idea. The concept is simple, tax actual profit of a business, not the whole amount they make in a year. Reason, because what they make in an entire year is not profit, for profit is what a business makes after payroll, taxation and any and all other expenditures. So here is how it would work in concept.

Part 1: By using the procurement records for say furniture, materials, and equipment a business can easily subtract these amounts from the overall amount of money they take in. A simple example would be a furniture store. They buy various pieces of furniture from manufactures to sell adding on ten percent to the price they paid to make a profit. What is taxed is that ten percent that has been added on as that is the actual profit made. Simple right? So a furniture store buys a chair for $90 but sells it for $100. When sold the profit is ten dollars and thus that ten dollars is what is taxed. Yes my examples are simplistic, but this is how it works in real life if such system would be put in place.

Part 2: What also should be deducted is the workers salaries and the cost of their health care. Just like when a business procures equipment, a business also has to continue "procuring" the labor of their workers. As such, allowing their salaries to be tax deductible would go far and wide in helping that business meet its "real" bottom line in respect to profit. For our purposes the first $100,000 of each worker (not employer) is tax deductible. So if you have three workers making $20,000 a year, then the business owner subtracts that overall money from the money made to ascertain the overall profit. So if the business made $100,000 after all other subtractions, then subtracts for the three workers salaries the business owner would subtract $60,000 which leaves an overall profit of $40,000 to be taxed. If health care costs are factored into this equation then there would be much less money to be taxed as that means there was a lot less profit. This system allows for any and all expenses by a business to be accounted for without any special forms (such as those that exist in the existing tax code) as payroll and other expenses are already accounted for in the businesses everyday practices.

Why do it this way?: Simple, businesses are what make the economy move. The current tax code in America is a monstrosity that suppresses businesses and keeps only those that the government likes in power. By doing it this way instead of the status quo, it enables businesses a chance to actually grow rather than have their budgets squeezed by the current unfair tax code. Currently the majority of businesses pay the personal income tax as opposed to the business tax based upon its rate, complexity and how it stifles growth. Remember, the current business tax taxes the overall money a business makes, not the actual profit of the business which is why small businesses would be crushed under the current code. So switching to this method solves that problem. Likewise, the business tax should be considered the personal income tax on an employer to make it fair as the business owner being taxed again based on income makes no sense as the profit from the business is their income. This is yet another reason why small and medium sized businesses pay the personal income tax over the business tax so as to avoid this double taxation.

Conclusion: The goal is a simpler, learner and a more responsive tax code. This version eliminates all special forms and simplifies the code enough to allow business owners to be able to grow without fear of the tax code becoming more punitive. We need reform and if we really are going to keep taxes on businesses, then it must be done in this manner that prevents monopolies, and allows for business growth. It is time for real reform that works and this ladies and gentlemen is the best answer right now.

Issue 272 Whose left to tax February 14, 2014

Now that you have dealt with me and my two weeks worth of saying not to tax all these different people, your wondering who is left to tax? Who is going to pay the federal governments (and the State and local governments’ bills)? Well these exceptions leave only two groups left.

The progressive income tax: If you remember from Issue 267 Don't tax the poor, people making under $30,000 will not be taxed. Those making between $30,000 to $40,000 will be taxed a flat rate of $2,000 and those who make $40,000 to $50,000 will pay a flat tax of $4,000. Everyone else will abide by a traditional progressive income tax after that. In this case $50,000 to $100,000 will be taxed at ten percent rate. At $100,000 to $200,000 they will be taxed at 15% and anyone beyond $200,000 will be taxed at 20%. This is what it would look like at least at the federal level of taxation. Since the majority of the income tax is paid to the federal government by the top ten percent of income earners (80% of the money taken in from the income tax is from them) we should be well off there. Especially as cost cutting measures will still need to take place regardless at the federal level. State level wise, the States should abolish their income taxes all together. One of the most punitive forms of taxation is the income tax (no matter its form) and thus is the biggest inhibitor of business. There is a reason why the States like Texas and Florida recovered first after the great recession, it was because they had no State income tax. To make this work, there will be no deductions for things like charity or anything save loans that must be paid off. The poor will no longer need such things under this system as many people will no longer need such exceptions. This also insures that all the subsidies and exceptions that usually benefit the rich (70% of deductions usually help the rich rather than their intended target, the poor). Let us also not forget that paying the taxes (hiring an accountant) is costly with American citizens paying millions of dollars a year just to get their money in order. So there is plenty of additional savings to be had by simply not taxing these people and simplifying the tax in the first place.

Retail: With all those producers and individuals no longer being taxed, both the Federal government and the States must find an alternative. In this case it is a sales tax exclusively at the retail level. Yes, you are probably screaming at me saying, wtf to higher costs of groceries and other items you buy at retail stores, but here is what you are forgetting. You are forgetting that you will be keeping much more of your money as you are probably in one of those individuals that cannot be taxed. In addition, prices will already be lowered based upon how much cheaper goods become when the producers of those goods no longer have to deal with the taxes they used to pay. So overall, the prices "should" balance out with certain exceptions (those that do not follow supply and demand and those goods and services that are affected by other government regulations/bad businesses). In this case, the sales tax will be small in the realm of five to ten percent as the income tax will still exist. At the State and local level, the tax will probably increase as certain properties like those of seniors and of various institutions become nontaxable. But the benefit is that sales taxes on goods and services are not as troublesome to deal with. You can still use coupons to cut costs, and sales of the week will still happen. Also, there are more goods and services being bought and sold in the United States than we have as a population. As such, with the combination of this altered progressive income tax and this retail tax (all other business taxes should disappear) will more than make up for the lost revenue.

Imports and exports: Since the country began, imports and exports along with fees on the sales of foreign goods have been subject to taxation. We should continue this only on imports. If we want more money for businesses to expand, create jobs and thus by default generate more tax revenue, we need them to be able to sell any and all goods and services that they see fit. So we do not tax goods and services leaving the United States. All other countries do not tax exports as they know it will hurt businesses and thus they do not. This is one of the few times I say we should copy other countries. Imports and additional sales taxes on imported goods will make a lot of revenue (especially on cheap knock off products from other countries) and thus make up for any trade imbalances.

Land Sales: The final form of taxation that is left is land sales. Just as you are thinking it is a sales tax on someone buying a home. When the United States was first founded the federal government made a lot of money this way and only really fell short during the civil war. So taxing land sales in the same way you would at retail would be most beneficial.

Conclusion: As you know, I am a libertarian. You also know that I hate the income tax as a whole. However, I try to be a realist when I can. We cannot get rid of one form of taxation without replacing it with another. Also, we can all agree that the federal government (States and local too) need to trim themselves down. As such, I put forth the aforementioned in combination with my tax exceptions from Issues 263 to 271. My goal is to make it so that at some point we can eventually be rid of the income tax completely at the business level (which this idea almost accomplishes) and we cut down on the income tax as well by making it more regressive for the people on the lower end of the economic ladder and somewhat more manageable for those at the higher levels. Of course this will only work with a lot of budget cuts and reforms at all levels of government (most of governments functions can already be done by the private sector). Yes, we can make reforms and we can succeed in making a better more manageable tax code. By doing all this we can get the government monkey off our backs.

Issue 271 Don't tax the military February 13, 2014

We have another set of hero's to stop taxing and with good reason. Here they are.

Sacrifice: Our soldiers fight our wars for us. They are separated from their families for months putting strains on relationships that unfortunately end in divorce. If the money was not so tight, then this strain may at the very least be lessened enough to allow these couples in the military a better chance at staying together. We place our soldiers into battle, and it is our duty to give them support.

Medical: Due to the unnatural nature of murdering another individual, our soldiers who defend themselves and our nation suffer from stress and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We try to help, but that help is not always enough. As such letting them keep more of their money would benefit them greatly. Also, let us not forget that some return from combat with missing limbs and deformities. By letting them and their families keep a little more of their income; it allows them to have more economic options when soldier’s benefits and charity are just not enough.

Low pay: Many of the grunts (our basic soldiers) have low pay. Many can survive on their own, but add a family into that equation and it becomes a struggle. Letting them keep more money aids them in having less strain on their marriages and their daily lives once home.

Conclusion: We really do not need a long explanation as to why these men and women in uniform should not be taxed by the federal, State or local governments directly. They deserve more than what we can give. Give them one less thing to worry about by not taxing them anymore for life.

Issue 270 Don't tax police and firefighters February 12, 2014

So let us not tax two very important groups of people. These groups are our Police and our firefighters (teachers and medical personnel are already included in my previous article Issue 266). So let me explain why.

Wear and tear: These men and women sacrifice much when it comes to protecting us from crime and fighting fires. They go through tough training and stress that taxes the body tremendously. Police are assaulted by criminals (especially corrections personnel) while firefighters run into a blaze to rescue us from harm. By the time they are able to retire, their bodies may become a mess.

They retire early: Because of this wear and tear they retire earlier than the rest of us. This is in the hope that there health conditions that are caused by the stress and the physical fatigue can be reversed or at the very least lessened. But sometimes their physical conditions lead to the need for medication or even therapy's of various kinds. Basically they may need long term care, but may still be wanting for money. As such, retirement may have to be put off or they may need a second job which may exacerbate any conditions that may have developed through the job. They need a break from what can only place more stress on them.

Self Sacrifice: Our police and firefighters do the job and do it well. Many are self sacrificing and even do the job to support their families. As a matter of fact, half the firefighters in the United States are either volunteer or are run by private companies. Also, some even work part time jobs on the side to just make a living. These men and women deserve a bigger break than just parades and fund raisers.

Conclusion: Given the aforementioned, these men and women in uniform are worthy of respect and admiration. By not taxing them we give them a monitorial advantage when it comes to dealing with health issues due to the job environment. If they are not taxed, then retiring early may not become as burdensome with respect to their economic needs after retirement. They are hero's who struggle day to day and thus do not deserve the burden of taxation. So let us stop taxing these heroes’s ladies and gentlemen.

Issue 269 Don't tax producers February 11, 2014

 
Producers are our farmers, the miners and other businesses that provide us with raw materials that allow for economic expansion. Here I will explain the idea to not tax them based on former presidential candidate Rick Santorum's idea.

Farmers: Farmers, whether industrial or traditional provide food for not just our country, but all countries around the globe. In America, farmers make up less than two percent of the population and yet still produce excess amounts of food that we export to other countries. Yet, the smaller farmers struggle. These smaller farmers who not just produce food, but materials for clothing, fertilizers and other materials from plant and animals struggle day to day with the market. They never know if another group of them will make so much of one particular crop that the price of there own crops may become worthless. There was even one point that a pound of potatoes was worth one penny. Economics plays a major roll in the price of goods from farmers and routinely puts many farmers into debt with no hope of paying it off. As such, by not taxing them, it reduces the chances of them being forced into the poor house. Yes that is correct, by not taxing these individuals (some of them are already receiving tax breaks already) it will allow them to make profit unhindered on their labor and therefore reduce the risk of them falling into poverty. Let us also not forget that by not taxing the farmers, some crops can be lowered in cost which makes them more accessible to people on a low budget like the poor. So there are advantages for everyone.

Miners: By miners I mean the guys (and sometimes gals) who dig up the raw iron, copper, and gold that comes out of the ground. These men and women provide us with all the raw materials that go into our houses, cars, roads and the like on a daily basis. If these people did not do their job, then who knows where our society would be? However, many of these people struggle. These businesses look to find places to mine once their first set of sources dry up. Not to mention they struggle with regulation after regulation all the while trying to keep their working environment safe and stay in business. Let us give these men and women a break and stop taxing them so that they can have one less thing to worry about.

Other producers: Other producers are our axmen who provide us with lumber to build homes and make things like paper. Mills that turn Iron ore into steel. Manufacturers that make parts for buildings and vehicles per customer demand. Basically, any job that makes a product that is not sold at the retail level provides us with the raw parts and materials needed for our economy to grow and strengthen. By not taxing them, we grow our economy, they struggle less with respect to looking for a contract, and it helps to reduce cost on those things they provide us. Again, we all win.

Conclusion: Overall, by not taxing the producers who find and cultivate the raw materials, and make the parts that are to be included into the final product, we give them an edge. That edge is in competing with foreign competitors, and with them being able to focus more on providing their essential services toward the economy. We gain because this makes goods cheaper, and allows start up businesses within this field to have an easier time gaining money and competing with their already established counterparts. So can we not tax these people who break their backs making what we take for granted?

Issue 268 Don't tax our investments February 10, 2014

Investments are a gamble. We invest in companies to get a return in the form of interest. Companies use the money in the same way they would a loan to grow and thus they create more jobs. The interest we get in return for our gamble allows us to acquire another source of income. Yet the money we put into the market and what we get out of our gamble is taxed. Here I will explain why investments should not be taxed.

First reason: As stated above, investments are a gamble. A successful business will earn people a profit, while an unsuccessful one will cause you to loose your money. However, all investing plays an essential service in all countries economies. It has become a driver of the market such that investments can even get countries out of recessions and depressions. For instance four of Americas recessions where solved partly or completely by reducing taxes on investments. These recessions happened during the Presidencies of Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and finally Bill Clinton. Could you imagine how fast a recession would end if the taxes that inhibit economic growth were abolished? The economy would boom very quickly and recover in times of trouble even faster.

The second: Investments come in many forms. However I will separate them into two types for this article, those that are double taxed and those that are tax exempt. The tax exempt ones are things like a 401K where you collect at retirement. Here you get money taken out of your check before taxes and then taxed when you cash it out. Usually this stuff is used for retirement and if you have already read Issue 263 Don't tax seniors, you will know that taxing the retirement of any retiree is only going to hurt them. However, the other form of investment (double tax) is taxed first. So your paycheck is taxed and then after you used your already taxed money to buy stock and invest you get taxed again on whatever you cash out. So in this instance you are being taxed twice. The first is on your income and then again on what interest you earned upon getting money off your investment. Double taxation is the only way to describe this theft. By taxing people twice you inhibit their ability to both spend and earn money. It basically makes them squeamish about buying even the essentials. Also, it inhibits people from going after money making opportunities like investments as they feel pressured by the additional taxation.

The third: It frees up the job market. How you might ask? Simply put, it takes people out of the workforce which allows for more job opportunities for everyone else. Basically, those who get rich off stocks do not have to have a job as their "new" job now is investing which allows business growth. Meanwhile, a job they would have occupied based on their skills is now open for someone else to take. Investing also allows some people to retire early and again this frees up jobs as their former employer will need someone to take their place. Social Security was partly invented to get the seniors and people who could retire early out of the job market so that lower skilled labor can take their place while higher skilled labor can move up and earn more income. So we should not care how much an individual makes earning stocks, for the fact is that we should be thanking them for advancing our economy and getting out of the job market to make way for everyone else.

Conclusion: So we have three main reasons to not tax investments. The first, that investing grows the economy and as such taxation of investments hinders economic growth and recovery. Two is that some individuals are taxed twice, once on their income and then again on their investments, which is clearly not fair to the individuals being taxed. And finally the third reason is that it frees up the job market by getting people out of the labor pool which allows other job seekers a chance to work and earn a living (i.e. it can help alleviate poverty in some cases). So I say let us not tax this economic tool that drives our economy. The advantages are clear, so quit taxing investments.

Issue 267 Don't tax the poor February 7, 2014

Yup, the poor are taxed. Well in America, by law it seems that anyone making more than $30,000 a year is considered rich with anyone making less than $20,000 being poor (I have no idea what the in between is, this is the federal governments definition, not mine). What needs to happen is a regressive tax system that allows the poor more economic opportunities. So here is my solution, don't tax them!

The taxed poor: Every year at the federal and the State levels of government the poor are taxed on their income. Further, the State and the local government may also tax them on their property. Usually they get some of this money back in the form of welfare which I find ridiculous. If you are just going to give them the money back (though not always as money and even then it may be less than what they were taxed on) then why take it from them in the first place. Essentially why the heck are you impoverishing them further and limiting their economic options.

My idea: I steal this idea from the progressives (people who believe in one of the many forms of socialism) from the early 1900s. They (including President Woodrow Wilson) only taxed the top income earners in the country when they pushed for the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution which allowed for direct taxation on individuals. For their purposes, only the top one percent was initially taxed to make things “fairer” (later on everyone was taxed). But for my purposes of removing direct taxation we would not tax anyone making under $30,000. With $30,000 being considered rich, it is an acceptable number at which to designate the threshold of what amount of income is taxed. This allows for regressive taxation at the mid between of the poverty line and below. As such, the poor would be able to earn more money without fear of reprisal of the tax code. Right now, many of the poor fear going over the poverty line because their welfare will be cut off. This decreases any incentive to work. But if they could keep more money in their pocket to the point that they make more money than they would have gotten under welfare, it incentivizes them to get out of poverty. This also reduces the number of people who need welfare as only the most desperate and impoverished will need some form of aid. So the only ones who would get welfare are a select group that absolutely need it most and that is only if they fall into a category where they cannot work do to a physical or psychological condition, or they are so impoverished that they are incapable of feeding themselves (or at least this is the goal with respect to not taxing the poor).

How it works: It is fairly simple. For one, anyone making under the $30,000 mark will not be taxed (adjusted each year for inflation). People will still need to file taxes each year to demonstrate how much they are earning per year however. If they go over the limit, rather than a tax based on the progressive income tax, they will pay a flat rate fee regardless of how much they went over up to the first $40,000. In this case I would have that fee be $2,000 with an entire year given to them to raise that money to pay it (even if it is in installments). This insures that if they for any reason made that extra money, they will not be taxed back down into poverty. To ensure there is an incentive to go even further up the income ladder, if the person makes over $40,000 to $50,000 they will only be taxed $4,000. Thus this eliminates much of the issues with respect to transitioning out of poverty and the welfare cycle and into earning ones own living. After the $50,000 mark however, the regular progressive income tax kicks in once again.

Weaknesses: This idea may still suffer from the issues of dependency. People may still require welfare do to them not wanting to work, and the idea I propose may still have disincentives to get out of poverty. My plan does however give a major tax break to anyone making less than $50,000 a year which is good for a majority of people and helps out the more economically capable of the poor in getting out of poverty. It unfortunately does not completely remove the need for certain people on welfare. While yes there are a good number of people on welfare that if they were not taxed, then they would not need welfare to live comfortably. However, there are still individuals who will lack means of getting out of poverty whether it is due to education, job loss, physical/mental ailments or just stigma from say prison time or other similar factors. Much of that can be handled by special programs that provide unemployment benefits combined with job training and education opportunities. Unfortunately, people will still slip through the cracks and be stuck on welfare such as the most disabled physically and mentally or those who cannot overcome the stigma society places on them. But, my idea is made to help the majority of the people so that they are not forced into the welfare office in the first place. In short, it is so that the only welfare required would be those for the unemployed and those completely unable to take care of themselves.

Conclusion: So this idea is about more than not taxing the poor, but giving them the opportunity to get out of poverty and the stigma it places on them by society. It is designed to be regressive at the lowest income levels so that people have a chance to make and keep more of what they earn. The more they keep, the less likely they will need any form of government assistance. So why don't we quit taking money from the poor just to give them less money back or the equivalent in lower quality support. Let them keep all of what they earn and only help those at the lowest of the low. That is the way to raise people out of poverty and get them off welfare, hopefully for good.

Issue 266 Don't tax schools or clinics Febuary 6, 2014

Some of you are saying what? Schools and clinics? Yes Schools and Clinics (hospitals and doctors offices) is exactly what I am talking about. Specifically, I am referring to privately run schools and clinics where individuals, not government, run and operate these institutions as a business. They are unfortunately taxed in various ways and that should stop.

Schools: Schools like private schools, charter schools and even personal tutors are taxed. Some are taxed based on business income like private and charter schools. They may even be taxed based on the property that the school sits on. Private tutors are taxed based on their personal income in much the same way teachers are taxed on theirs. That is a lot of taxation to go around which drives up the costs of educating children for the next generation. As such, I say stop taxing the schools (both income and property tax) and stop taxing the teachers and the private tutors as well. This frees up money for educating kids or giving the teachers higher pay. If a private school could keep more of the money they earn they may be able to hire another teacher to educate more children. A teacher could get more money so as to get by. Tutors could afford to take on additional students. Charters could struggle less with money and also possibly hire more teachers to educate more children. Just by eliminating the taxes on these institutions and people alone, we can expand educational opportunities or give teachers a well deserved raise.

Clinics: When I say clinics, I use the name loosely. In this case I include hospitals, doctor’s offices, specialists and anything in-between. So did you know that doctors that own their own practice pay business taxes as well? They are in no way exempt from the tax structure and this artificially inflates the cost of health care. As I am sure you would agree, anything that makes health care more costly in a very bad thing. Therefore, stop taxing these hospitals and doctors offices. These people play a major role in maintaining people’s health and that money saved could go instead to expanding the doctor’s office to handle more patients. Hospitals would be able to invest in better and more advanced equipment. Smaller doctor’s offices would be able to have more flexibility in what equipment and resources they use with respect to treating patients. It may even make it feasible for doctors to visit you instead of you going to them. Expanded further, not taxing doctors income also advances these possibilities, especially for doctors that own their own practices. Also, let us not forget, this saved money can also mean cheaper prices for doctor’s visits as well.

Conclusion: Yet another two places where taxes should be abolished. I do not care if some doctors make six figure salaries or that private and charter schools make a profit by educating children. The fact is that these institutions and people do an essential service for the public at large. Think about it, teachers not only educate our kids, but also look after them while we work. Doctors deal with multitudes of the sick and infirm all day long exposing themselves to diseases that could potentially harm them as well (and not to mention grumpy patients). We can afford to not tax these people who deserve our thanks and admiration. So let's do just that by not making it harder for them to give of themselves, by not taxing them further.

Issue 265 Don't tax small business Febuary 5, 2014

In America, small businesses make up approximately 70% of the job creators in the country. Usually a person’s first job is from a small business and from their experience there, it aids them in learning responsibility, integrity and gives them the job skills needed to move up in life. However, small businesses are suppressed in America. What I mean by this is the regulations and the business taxes that prevent the small businesses from expanding into larger businesses which from my perspective are made to secure the position of the larger big businesses by insulating them from competition. As such I want to give the small business an edge by not taxing there income.

How it would work: To define a small business you can do one of two things. You can either define a small business by its income or you can define it by the number of employees. The income type is progressive, but it inherently makes the tax free idea unstable for if a business gains over a certain amount of money it will then be taxed. As such, it hinders growth of businesses. Defining a small business by the number of employees is much easier and simpler. It is a regressive type of tax free system. In this case it allows the business to earn as much money as they want without fear of being forced to pay taxes. As such, for the purposes of not taxing a small business, it will be any business that employs 50 people or less (excluding the owner(s) of that business). There is precedent for this with respect to Obama care that says that if a business has under 50 employees they are exempt from providing health care to their workers, and in Social Security back when it first started that exempted businesses under 30 employees from having to pay the business portion of the Social Security tax. As such, any business under 50 employees will not be taxed.

Expansion: If this is successful, and the small businesses begin to grow with respect to economic growth, then we can redefine a small business to any business that employs 100 people or less. The reason for this later redefinition is because there is one flaw that has to be addressed in this tax free idea for small businesses with that flaw being the lack of hiring new workers. You see, business owners are smart (obviously because they are running a successful business).  A business owner will not want to hire that 51st person if it meant having to pay taxes unless there was a way for that owner to break even with respect to how much they were making prior to hiring the individual and of course not loose the ability to make money. However, limiting it to 50 people is an inhibitor as we have seen under Obama care where businesses have cut back working ours and employees just to avoid the mandates in the law. So the only solution is the expansion to 100 people once the government has adjusted to the lost revenue that they would have gotten if they continued to tax these businesses. So this solves the basic problem.

Defining a worker: The change will make no distinction between full time and part time workers. Reason being is that current market trends have businesses cutting back workers hours so they do not reach the governments standards of a full time worker. Also, some businesses define full time hours as 30 hours or over as opposed to the 40 hours as mandated by government. As such, full time and part time is subjective based on economic trends and government influences. So saying strictly 50 (100 if the expansion idea is acceptable) workers or less makes more sense. Now we have to decide how long a person has to be working at a business to be a worker at a business. For our purposes the employee must have been working for a full six months out of the year to be considered an actual employee. Reason I define it this way is so to make it flexible for business owners to still hire seasonal workers without fear of taxation. Also, a new worker has to go through a sort of probation, so six months encompasses that time period. I do not specify the number of hours worked as this may cause businesses to suppress their workers hours more than what is happening right now in the economy. So a person being an employee can be working an hour a week and be considered an employee. It is almost a form of negative reinforcement that allows business to maximize hours of the individual worker without fear of additional taxation.

Conclusion: I don't want small businesses taxed in order to give these small businesses a chance to grow and expand. It gives small businesses a better chance at becoming a bigger better business via innovation and service. Let us face it, innovation does not come always from the top and thus by letting small businesses earn more they can thus compete. I hope that one day all small businesses will go completely untaxed so as to secure a better future for new business growth, a place for people to access new jobs and of course grow our economy. I will look for any excuse to not tax a person or a business directly through an income tax, and this is one of those situations that give's just the right amount of reason to do just that.

 

Issue 264 Don't tax our kids Febuary 4, 2014

 
Yup, here in America children are taxed. Not just any children, but the children that work part time jobs earning a legitimate pay check. I find it very messed up and want it stopped.

Those who tax kids: The federal government taxes them by taking a portion from their paycheck. Usually though, that money is later given back. But when that money is given back, the State and sometimes local government tax the tax return. On top of that the State and local government tax the child's regular income as well. This of course is done by both States and Localities that have an income tax in the first place. Silly isn't it.

Why we should not tax them: My main reason for not taxing them is because they cannot vote. Children under age 18 cannot vote in any election or referendum. As such they have no say on how their tax dollars are spent and on how much of their money is taken from them in the first place. In short, they have no say in society. Therefore, because they do not have a say, it is taxation without representation.

Let us not forget that some of these kids really want to go to college or they are impoverished and are trying to help out their families. By taking this money (even if temporarily in some cases) it inhibits there ability to not only save money but to help there families when and where they need it. From groceries to bill paying, children who work help out when they can because they love their family and want to protect them. It is not right to take money from the mouth of babes.

Going a step further: If I could, I would make anyone under the age of 25 nontaxable as well. This allows both kids and young adults a solid financial footing and gives them a chance to earn a larger paycheck and pay off college debts all that much faster. Mind you, I am already 25 so if this is ever passed, I would not be able to take advantage of such a benefit, but I want the generations to come to have a better chance at earning more income faster than I did.

Conclusion: I sincerely believe that people under a certain age should be tax exempt based on there ability to represent themselves (all those under 18 if they are working). These kids need all the advantages they can get and making them exempt from income taxes is one of the best advantages I can think of to help insure that they come out more financially secure than there peers who did not get this sort of advantage. Come on America, you know this is the right thing to do, so let’s get to it.

Issue 263 Don't tax our seniors Febuary 3, 2014

Our senior citizens have done much to build us up. They have toiled away for most of there lives trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. Yet we continue to tax them. Should we not give back to them rather than steal from their bank accounts? I think so and here is how I think it should be done.

Federal level: At this level of government seniors are subject to progressive income taxes, taxes for Social Security and Medicare, taxes on their investments and their retirement. I say that we stop taxing all of these things. Starting at age 70, seniors become entirely tax exempt from all forms of direct taxation. While age 70 is a good start (age 75 is the current life expectancy in the United States) it will gradually go down to age 60. This would allow for seniors at age 60 to begin earning larger paychecks before retirement at age 65 when they become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits. As such, seniors may not have to work as hard, or as long, allowing them to retire earlier and even hopefully relax.

State and local: Here again seniors are taxed on all forms from income, from investments and even property. They are also subject to sales taxes as well. Here too direct taxation (anything that is not considered a sales tax) should be removed as a burden from them. They already struggle to live on limited incomes upon retirement, and yet the government continues to steal all that money (and in some cases taxing it twice). I have met too many seniors who struggle after retirement and are thus forced to work even into there 80s and 90s (my grandmother works at a children's clinic at age 87) just to get by. It is disgraceful to a society to subject our seniors to possible impoverishment.

Logic: Our seniors have done much to advance this country forward and yet they are taxed. Retirement does not come with an ever lasting money supply that will allow all seniors to live comfortably and to take money from an already limited income, to me, is theft. There are also those seniors who suffer from diseases, and conditions that increase their medical expenses which further limit their disposable income. As such, letting them keep and earn more if they decide they want to continue working is the best solution as they are thus less likely to need to apply for welfare or aid from the government in general.

Also, let us not forget that paying taxes and filling out forms for special exceptions becomes both burdensome and stressful for seniors which can exacerbate any physical ailments. By eliminating taxation on these seniors there becomes no need for many of those special forms save those to apply for a reduced water bill and the like. In short, less complex forms to fill out saves seniors from the burden of having to look for these financial breaks and filling out the forms in the first place.

Reducing there taxes to zero also allows seniors to stay in there homes by making it more affordable to stay in them as they will not have to pay taxes on the property. It allows seniors flexibility on living arrangements and allows them to tap into there investments without fear of the dreaded tax day that many Americans loath. In my opinion it is about giving our seniors the break they need while reducing the number that need help later on in life.

Conclusion: Some may be asking about those rich seniors like Warren Buffet or George Soros. Well, I don't care. This is not about the money a senior has or has yet to earn. It is all about recognizing first and foremost that those senior citizens helped build our country and that they earned a break from the pressures government puts on them in life. You all already know that I hate the income tax and that I wish it would all go away. However, I know that it is nearly impossible to be rid of it as it stands right now. As such, I will look for ways to get rid of it, piece by piece and who better to stop taxing first than the senior citizens who deserve a break life's burdens.