Issue 41 Asset Taxes March 26,2013

Did you know that in the country of Cyprus, an Island nation in the Mediterranean, the government there may issue an asset tax? You are probably wondering what on Earth an asset tax is. Well it is a tax on the amount of money in your bank account. Basically, just like income tax, but it taxes how much money you have.

Back Ground: The reason they want to implement this form of taxation in Cyprus is because most of the members of the European Union are bankrupt and that includes Cyprus. They spent more than they took in tax revenue just like the United States is doing now, but did not fix the problem in time to save themselves. So they got a bailout, but they still have to meet payments. Thus, their asset tax.

It can happen here: There is currently no law or constitutional provision that prevents the United States Congress or the American President from taxing our assets in the same way. While yes, the constitution does list four types of taxation (impost, expost, excise and through the 16th amendment an income tax), it does not limit taxation to just those four. In fact, the reason the affordable health care act (Obama Care) was declared constitutional was due to Supreme Court ruling that the financial penalties for not having health insurance were a tax. Thus, in order to insure that American Citizens are not taxed on their assets, or for that matter in any other way we do not like, we would need a Supreme Court ruling limiting taxation to just the taxes listed in the United States Constitution.

I pray that the situation in Cyprus and the rest of the European Union is resolved. But, their crises is a warning to the rest of the world, if it can happen in Democratic European Countries, then who is to say that it cannot happen in the rest of the world. Good luck to you people of Cyprus, and for that matter, good luck to the rest of the people around the globe.

Issue 40 My Ideal Business Tax March 25,2013

Well, here I go again talking about reform. But the fact is the more people discuss ideas the better those ideas can be vetted and thus become superior to the original.

In this issue I tell of my ideal business tax (although I would prefer no business taxes to exist in the first place), so lets get started.

It must be flat: My ideal business tax must be a type of flat tax. All businesses would be taxed at the same rate no matter how large or small. This will create an even playing field for all businesses as they will all be treated equal.

There investments must not be taxed: When a business invests in the stock market it is so its own business can grow and expand. The more money invested, the better off that business will be. In addition it will aid the overall stock market in growth and aid in a market recovery faster if the market should go down. Presidents Coolidge, President Kennedy, President Reagan and President Clinton all decreased taxes on the stock market and saw an economic growth spurt, so allowing businesses to go untaxed will do the same.

The Business Tax rate must be competitive: If another country has a lower business tax rate than ours, then if and when possible, our business tax rate must decrease to meet or be lower than there’s and stay that way. Businesses only stay in countries with a competitive tax rate and cheap expenses (like cheap labor). Currently the U.S. has one of the highest business taxes in the world and thus limits start up companies from forming and prevents foreign businesses from wanting to come to the U.S. to become U.S. businesses.

Tax only the actual profit of a business: Currently most business taxes tax the total amount of money a business may earn, however that is not profit. What a business actually earns is the money minus all the expenditures. So I am going to take some ideas from both Congressman Paul Ryan and former Presidential Candidate Herman Cain. The tax on business under these two ideas combined by me would be the total earnings minus everything the business has bought (parts, materials, services etc) and minus the first $15,000 per worker (so as to make both skilled and unskilled workers cheap). So let’s use a quick life example, a furniture company. That company buys cloth for the covers, wood for the frames of the couches and chairs they make. From there they sell that couch or chair at 10% more of what it costs them to build the item plus a little more to accommodate the tax rate (flexible depending on how much profit they need, and the fact is the consumer pays the business tax through our spending). And it is that simple. Buying and selling records are used to confirm how much tax is paid. But, I include workers salaries and services the business procures. So the business would subtract from that total $15,000 per worker, and say if the business provides healthcare, it would subtract the total cost of health care of its workers that it provides. What ever is left over is what is taxed.  This is simpler than the current system as it forces businesses to hold records beyond buying and selling records that increase just the costs of figuring out how much taxes they will have to pay.  My ideal system uses paperwork that businesses already have without the extra mandates by the IRS.

Collection must be at regular intervals: To ensure a steady stream of revenue, this business tax must be collected at regular intervals that businesses can plan around.  The best bet would be to collect the tax four times a year.

 

Conclusion: Business taxes are a scourge as they do not actually help anyone. Sure it aids in collecting revenue, but it is used as a weapon to keep competing businesses from threatening the power of bigger more established businesses.  It is in truth a form of legal corruption.  This form of income taxation also allows politicians to raise taxes on the public at large without directly taxing them. Basically, it makes your local businesses and big businesses the tax collector.  These are the reasons I would prefer to be rid of such taxes, but as politicians would prefer to keep their safety net for when they need to raise taxes, this is the best alternative.

Issue 39 legal corruption March 22,2013

Corruption is something that exists in both government and business and of course it is a crime. But what happens if that corruption is legal. Here are some examples.

1) Government Contracting: This one is a very simple form of corruption that costs tax payers lots of money. For instance, when a contract for a new bridge is put up, the government can specify who and what businesses can bid. They can limit it by: if the business is union, if they make a certain amount of money per year, exist within a certain region of the country or the world, or they can simply say they are allowing bidding for the contract, but choose the one they had in mind anyway through collusion. Basically, the government can shut out anyone they want if they do not meet the requirements they specify thus making it easier to support the contractor they want.

2) Licensing: Governments license individuals under the guise of protecting the consumer, but in actuality these laws just protect those already working. It can cost thousands of dollars to get a license, not to mention the training the individual may be forced to take. For example, it can take up to a million dollars for a cabby to get a medallion which would let him operate his own business. However, because it costs so much to get a medallion, the cabby is forced to work for a company that rips into his/her profits. Licensing helps protect established businesses prosper while shutting out competition which in turn drives up cost. Do certain occupations need to be licensed, sure, but not hair stylists, picture framers, florists and the like? In fact, if the licensing process was limited to just the occupations where it counts, then many more people would be able to go into business for themselves.

3) Accreditation: Like licensing, accreditation protects the establishment. It has already been shown that colleges do not turn out lawyers, they turn out people called lawyers with no actual experience who have to be retrained by the firm they hopefully end up working for. Likewise, teaching does not require a master’s degree, let alone a bachelor or even an associate’s degree for that matter as it has been shown high levels of education do not make a good teacher. Accreditation serves the same purpose as licensing, to prevent new workers in a particular field from flooding the market to keep the price of goods and services high. It also serves the purpose to drive up college costs. Yes colleges are part of this corruption as where else can you get accredited, but a college. You have to go through the high costs, and take classes you don't need to achieve your degree, but you end up in debt up to your eyeballs. So banks get a cut too. It is a vicious and despicable form of corruption.

4) Tax Breaks, Credits and Deductions: The tax code also serves to aid in corruption. It allows certain companies to dodge taxation like Verizon and General Electric (GE), but causes small upstarts who cannot afford to deal with the 22,000 page monstrosity of the tax code to be taxed to the limit. America has a tax code that is set up to stifle competition to keep the biggest businesses on top. It also aids the rich in general as the rich can hire the lawyers to worm through the tax code so they pay less or avoid paying if at all. All tax breaks, credits and deductions do is distorts the tax code and even makes it expensive to even pay taxes in the first place. The only solution is a flat tax with zero deductions, credits and breaks, but it will have to be passed through Congress and similar versions passed through the State legislatures as the corruption exists there as well.

5) Student Loans: The student loan industry established by the Federal Government is making college more and more expensive. Every time to Federal government increases the amount of money given in loans to students for education, the colleges raise tuition. In fact, with the amount of money these colleges are getting, they can afford to make 4 or even 5 star accommodations for their students. They get richer while our Federal government foolishly supports the students who will sink deeper and deeper into debt. All I can say is that if the degree is worth sinking into debt, then fine, but don't support students going to college is they are just going to end up as wage slaves for the rest of their lives.

We can see now where corruption takes place legally. Part is due to lobbying, and others are due to good intentions, but in the end it is still a form of corruption that picks winners and losers. Get rid of lobbyists you say? Well last I checked real lobbyists don't actually register as lobbyists. It's not just lobbyists, but silly notions that going to college equal a higher wage when it is those students who are highly motivated that are the ones who get higher wages irrespective of going to college. Thus, the facts are skewed. End licensing? Sure, but which ones. The obvious would be hair stylists, or picture framers and the like, but the idiots in government think we need protection from a bad hair cut. So they must be convinced. Likewise accreditation must be changed so that college is no longer a requirement for certain majors like gender studies, and other forms of sociology. Basically, colleges must be cleansed by making it that people can become teachers without accreditation in a private school, and a person can apprentice themselves to a lawyer or research scientist to learn in the field. Government contracting needs to be overhauled completely with all bidders being treated equal and those who are hired that don't do the job in budget punished. The tax code needs to be burned and replaced, and students should have their debt forgiven (note: I went to college but have no debt) as it is immoral to subjugate students or should I say young adults to a life of a debtor.

I want change that will fix the system and treat people fairly. I want to bring back social mobility and the ability for Americans to follow their dreams again. Heck, just fixing these problems decreases government and makes it easier to see corruption in the first place. It is time for actual change.

 

Issue 38 Common Sense: Against Idiots March 21,2013

Here we will talk about stupid things our government does to mess up people’s lives and how to fix the problem.

1) Stop taxing the incomes of people under the age of 18. Some of our workforce is under the age of 18, but they cannot vote in any election by law. This is taxation without representation and thus is unfair to our young men and women who cannot have a say in government. The solution is simple; don't tax anyone if they are too young to vote. Some of these kids have these jobs to support their family’s income or are getting basic work experience, so why add an extra burden on them or their employer. In fact, if these young adults are not taxed, they may become more in demand by an employer who now does not have to put in the bureaucratic paper work and other difficulties imposed by government for a traditional worker (18 and up). This allows young men and women to get practical work experience and allow them to keep what they earn.

2) Stop taxing Social Security Benefits. Our seniors put into the Social Security and Medicare system through their taxpayer dollars. In effect, by law, Social Security is a form of welfare. So why would the idiots in government tax these benefits when technically it is not even actual income. Basically, I say stop hitting our seniors over the head with more taxes, they put in more than enough into the system.

3) Where will we make up that lost revenue mentioned in #2? It is very easy to make up that lost revenue. For one, why are we giving Social Security Benefits, or even Medicare benefits to senior that are so rich that they don't need Social Security or Medicare? Basically, means test the entire Social Security and Medicare system to prevent those seniors who are rich from raiding the system, but make it so that if they ever fall to poverty they can get Social Security and Medicare benefits. In short, make it a true safety net. However, those rich seniors who fall to poverty, and seniors who are upper middle class, but are still eligible to be in the system have their benefits capped. This will preserve the money in the system.

4) Why do we let people retire with Social Security when they will only end up or stay impoverished? It makes no sense that we allow people to retire at a specific age with respect to our Social Security and Medicare system. Shouldn't they know how much a year they will be getting in benefits and that they will not be allowed to retire till their benefits reach above a certain percentage of the poverty line. I am tired of hearing about seniors having to struggle even when they are getting Social Security benefits. Sure we can subsidize their income through welfare, but Social Security was meant to prevent that. That's why I at least support the means testing of benefits and disallowing retirement until it is affordable for our seniors to do so (note: Paul Ryan's plan does include this, see issue 28 for details).

5) We have so many welfare programs yet different standards upon which people are eligible to receive them. It makes no sense to have different sets of rules and standards for which people can apply to welfare. It is because of these disparate rules that it allows recipients to game the system in the first place. Basically, we need one form from which a single unified welfare office (yes I am advocating the creation of a single new department governing all welfare) can decide who is eligible for what benefits. Need help giving your kid an education, aid because you are a single parent, or just plain out poor, the form will be able to look at all this information and provide the best benefits (and only those benefits) that meet your economic situation. Apply the KISS (Keep it simple Stupid) method to the entire process to prevent that minority of welfare cheats from ripping the tax payers off.

6) Why can welfare recipients get cash back on their benefits cards? At one point I was working at a supermarket and about a full third of the people who were using food stamps got cash back so they could purchase beer, and other junk food that is not supposed to be bought with welfare money. These people cheated the system, and we the tax payers paid for their beer. Likewise this same problem occurs when you hear of welfare recipients getting cash from ATMs before gambling or going into strip clubs. The best solution is to get rid of the cash back feature and that 1/3 may scream about it, but at least the tax payer is no longer being robbed.

7) If you support school choice, why are you making some parents pay twice for their child's education? Has it ever occurred to you that if you are sending your child to a private school, Catholic school, or a charter or even home schooling your kid that you are still paying for the public school you were trying to avoid? Long story short, if your child is enrolled in another school other than a public school, you should not have to pay school taxes. It comes down to use, if you are not using the public school system in your area, you should not have to pay for your child's education twice. This also allows other parents a chance to send their children to a charter or private institution as with them being taxed less, other schools become more affordable. Also, more expensive schools that can better meet the needs of children already using a private or charter gain the option to go there instead. Basically, by giving families a reprieve from school taxes you open up more opportunities to children. It really is school choice (note: I will discuss more on school choice in future issues).

Conclusion Government does some silly things that are either unfair or are just plain out stupid. Can we just stop the stupidity and fix the problem already.

Issue 37 Evolving the Treasury March 20,2013

Getting our fiscal house in order is going to take effort and a centralized body that can monitor the Federal Governments fiancés can help us do that.

Evolving the Treasury

            The United States Treasury is one of the most important institutions of the Federal government.  All money the Federal government collects in taxes comes here.  However, the other Federal agencies are acquiring powers and abilities that belong to the Treasury department, such as making loans to foreign countries and private concerns without Congressional approval.  One example of this is Solyndra, the solar panel company that the EPA loaned money to that went bankrupt.  It is time the Treasury took its power back.

            The treasury is already responsible for tax collection and accounting for that money.  It also has an auditing function, but it is not the only agency in the Federal government with the power to audit other Federal institutions.  Thus, all Federal level auditing agencies and departments should be merged into the United States Treasuries Auditing department or eliminated.  This will make the U.S. Treasury the sole auditor of the entire Federal bureaucracy.

            Any and all payroll of government officials should be done exclusively by the U.S. Treasury and their salaries and benefits published for all the American public to see.  For the sake of transparency everything the government spends on should be accounted for and published all in one central location.  The other Federal agencies will have to request the Treasury to buy their equipment and resources for them.  Included in the request will be a justification of why that department or agency is procuring that particular piece of equipment or resource, and the Treasury will approve or disapprove the request based on strict criteria given to them by Congress.  This will prevent agencies like the EPA and Homeland Security from buying televisions, comics to promote their existence and the like from occurring and wasting tax payer money.

            I would add to the Treasury a unified human resources department.  Here the Treasury will receive a request and justification for a position to be filled in another department or agency.  That same agency making the request will also send strict requirements that the new hire must meet to be approved. Then the Treasuries human resources division will vet the candidates and narrow down the qualified applicants to two or three people per position that needs to be filled.  The final decision to hire which applicant will be left to the requesting agency.  In this role the Treasury aids in removing any sort of corruption in the hiring process and ensures that, like agencies expenditures, costs are worth it.  With one central location for all hiring of the Federal government, efficiency is improved with all the agencies and departments turning to the Treasury to fulfill their personnel needs.  

            Loans are the biggest issue with the EPA making loans to private firms, and the Federal Reserve making loans to foreign countries without Congresses approval.  The only Federal agency that should be able to make loans should be the U.S. Treasury at the direction of Congress.  It is Americas money and should not be spent now or ever without our consent through our representatives.

            We can also make the Treasury take over the job of printing the U.S. dollar.  Currently this is handled by the Federal Reserve which is run by appointed bankers and thus works for the banking industry.  By removing this power we turn the Federal Reserve into an advisory committee on the valuation of the American dollar.  We do not need bankers, appointed or not, deciding how much of our currency is produced, inflating or deflating its value for theirs and their supporters benefit.

            The changes presented here simplify the government.  It would allow Congress to better control U.S. finances; prevent waste at the Federal level, and removing functions from other agencies that they have no business having in the first place.  Obviously the only exception to this centralization would be the military and our intelligence agencies.  In that case, the military and intelligence agencies as a whole or in part would answer to a different centralized body when it comes to fiancés and recruitment.  This is meant to ensure no secretes come out that are not supposed to.  So shall we the people take back control of America’s fiancés through the evolved Treasury?                   

The Idea:  Simplify every aspect of the Federal Government and eliminate government watch dog groups made by the government like the Government Services Administration (GSA) who don't do their job.  In addition, this will eliminate the need for positions in each agency that monitor for accountability like Auditor Generals and other appointed positions that may not be filled, or are ignored.  Of course an enforcement mechanism should be in place, such as the Treasury withholding funds to a department or agency who do not comply, and freezing or taking back pay of Federal employees who do not pay their taxes.  Let's fix this broken system once and for all.

Issue 36 Going Postal on the Post Office March 19,2013

Another way of cutting is gaining efficiency out of current government programs...in this case the post office.

Going Postal on the Post Office

            No, I am not going to say eliminate the post office.  As much as I agree it can be privatized, it will solve nothing.  Instead I would like to change what role the post office plays in America.

            The first thing I would do is merge the census bureau with the post office.  When the census takes place or other such important information needs to be handed out and then retrieved the postal worker stops at every door.  To collect the census, the postal worker only has to collect it from your mail box once it is complete.  This allows for a more accurate tally of the population of the United States without the need to hire temporary workers to distribute and collect census data.

            Change number two is any mail going to government offices or officials will be handled exclusively by the post office.  I am sure we can agree that government officials and offices are tempting terrorist targets.  This will allow all packages to be screened for bombs, anthrax and other goodies the terrorists would like to throw at us.  Any United States agency that already conducts such screenings will be merged with this new function of the post office or be eliminated so as to increase efficiency and effectiveness.

            A third change would be any mail or documents coming from government agencies or politicians to the people will be handled by the post office.  This means if you get your welfare check or some other government package it will be coming from a postal worker who double checks to see if you live where you say you live.  It also allows the government to track how much mail politicians send to constituents to track costs and aid in transparency. 

            The fourth change is meant to stop pandemics.  If a pandemic should occur, the cure will be delivered right to your door.  With the only negative being if you are allergic to the cure, the benefits out weigh the cost.  Make sure you take the cure with someone present though.

            For the fifth change, I would have the post office take care of all military correspondence between bases.  Rather than have the military handle this themselves, we can free up soldiers to fight by the post office mailing out the checks, and other documents too and from bases.  This also aids in screening for terrorist threats by having the post office screen the packages.  Obviously redactors will still be needed to prevent sensitive information from being leaked out.  The postal worker will obviously not deliver mail to combat zones due to the obvious danger and lack of training.

            Post Offices already handle passports, so why not all forms of photo ID and government paperwork.  By having one location for all these governmental needs, logistics will be simplified.  In this respect the Post Office and its workers will work on behalf of all governments in the United States.

            A responsibility I would spread out that the post office currently handles is the delivery of all forms of magazines, advertisements, and traditional correspondence like letters.  By spreading this responsibility out to companies like DHL, UPS and their ilk it will do two things.  One is allow the post office focus on its new roll as a true government institution and two to give a boost to shipping companies’ profits and secure them financially.  The post office will be a fall back in case one of the private suppliers fails to ensure whatever mail is already in transit reaches its destination. 

            Yes, some of these ideas will take away money from the Post Office while others will secure its place in America as an institution.  But, it is just that, ideas.  My primary goal is efficiency in the government and the Post Office is an institution already ready to take on additional roles.  I am sure others can think of other institutions or government functions that can be shuffled around to increase the efficiency of the government while reducing waste and redundancy.  We should all be concerned with slimming down the government, by doing such things as putting all forms of welfare into a single agency, or eliminating duplicate functions.  Remember, a more efficient government is a less expensive and easier to understand government.

Issue 35 The Church March 18,2013

Taking a break from politics today so I can address what I want from the new Pope. Yes I am Catholic, and I want some changes from the Church to make it better in "shepherding the flock."

1) Priests should be able to marry. The sacrament of marriage is to show love for one another and hopefully to usher new life into the world under the eyes of God. While I understand the commitment that the Priests make to the Priesthood is to demonstrate their commitment, are there not other ways of showing it? Are there not other ways to show your dedication toward God? Also, how can a priest aid a couple in marriage if he does not understand marriage himself? Likewise nuns should be allowed to marry if they fall in love. A shepherd cannot be a shepherd if he/she does not know the reasons why the flock moves in the way it does.

2) There should be women priests. I argue the same argument with marriage, a priest (man) cannot hope to understand the mind of a woman. Also, are not women just as capable and dedicated toward their commitment to God? In the past, we were a male dominated society, but now the domination of men has eroded and women are taking control of their own lives. So, let them become priests and let them too shepherd the flock.

3) Priests should have jobs too. So that a priest may understand the daily pressures of the flock a priest, nun, monk, or other member of the clergy should be able to have a part-time job. It will allow them to gain spending money to use for themselves and for the church and its parishioners. They can work on specific days or hours and then come to preach in the church. If a priest is married, this will also help to ease the burden of the Catholic Church in supporting the family.

4) Clean up the church. We have heard of many scandals of priests molesting young children, and to make it worse, covering it up. Part of the reason the new Pope was elected was to root out those who would cover up such a heinous act and those perpetrators who make victims of children. Thus, I propose anyone wishing to become part of the clergy have a background check to identify if they are a potential problem. Likewise, prosecute all those who the church finds to have harmed their fellow man.

I hope our new Pope serves the faith well and continues what his predecessors started. The church should still support scientific study as it did under Pope John Paul II, and reach out to Africa as under Pope Benedict. I want every one of the clergy to know basic medicine to aid the sick and infirm, healthy eating habits to teach them to parishioners who need help getting healthy, exercise techniques to preserve the body, and know how to seek out information through things like the Internet and in the written word to teach the flock how to seek and ascertain information. A member of the clergy is first and foremost a teacher that should follow the lesson passed to us by Jesus "give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." In short, teach useful skills and impart useful knowledge to parishioners to help them become self reliant in life.

The church has much work to do and has much to change to improve itself and its image. What I say here is what I personally seek from my church, my Catholicism. There can always be a better church that aids mankind in improving themselves so that we may be worthy of entering Heaven and God's embrace, even if the church must forever remain on Earth.