Issue 58 A Fairer Tax: The Fair Tax April 18 2013

Another alternative to the tax code.  One that creates true equality.  Hope you enjoy :)
 

What Is the Fair Tax: The Fair Tax is a tax designed to bring business back to America and turn our country from a consumer nation back into a producer nation. It eradicates all current taxes, and I mean all of them, and replace them with a sales tax that only applies at the retail level. That means you are only taxed on what you buy at say CVS, Walgreens, or your local mom and pop store. Its not just products, but services like when you hire a lawyer you are being taxed as well. So it is everything you buy that is being taxed. What is not taxed are the processes that lead up to the retail level. So when the iron is bought by the steel mill from the iron mine it is not taxed. The steel is not taxed when bought by the car manufacturer. However, when the consumer, like you and me, buy the car we are taxed. The estimated tax on all these goods and services bought at the consumer level is 23% (estimated for the American market). Some are saying that that amount is outrageous, but they are forgetting one important thing. There are no other taxes so you have more money in your pocket. You keep all of your paycheck. Not just you though, the businesses too. This leads to four possible outcomes; one, because a businesses has more money to spend it can lower its prices leading to cheaper goods, homes or even lawyers. Two, more money goes into the pockets of average working Americans. That’s right; you may get a raise, in some cases higher than the minimum wage. The third which is a combination of the first two: lower prices and larger pay. Fourth, the one that people will dread happening, is the employer becoming greedy and keeping all the savings for themselves.

Preventing Greed: People will certainly be scared of greedy employers who keep all the savings created by the fair tax, so how is such a situation prevented. Well, it comes down to competition for the money in your wallet. If they don’t lower there price in comparison to a direct competitor, then they loose business, "your business." Thus, it’s either lower the cost of the goods you sell or possibly go out of business. Also, there is another safety net against bad employers, the workers themselves. If they see a job which pays more, they will seek to acquire that job. At the same time new workers will be deterred from working for the bad employers business because they don’t pay as well as there competitors. The result is the bad employer getting less skilled and/or experienced workers who did not make the cut at the higher paying industry. So the bad employer gets the leftovers while the higher skilled/more experienced workers work for the higher paying company. An employer wants skilled workers who do not need to be trained as much, can do the job both efficiently and effectively and are most importantly professionals. If you have employees of the aforementioned ability then you will generally have a successful business. Those with the leftovers I wish them good luck.

  

 The Poor: Ok, we got the biggest worry out of the way.  With little to no taxes, businesses are free to grow and expand and you keep your whole paycheck.  So that 23% tax is now very meager in comparison to your now untouched paycheck.  Some though are probably concerned about the poor who may not see all of the benefits of this new tax system.  Well, the legislation (located at Fairtax.org) has something called a pre-bate.  This gives money to the lowest income earners so they can afford what they need most.  Best of all, they will still be paying taxes, so everyone is contributing to the system for the countries prosperity. 

My Concern:  I have a concern though.  Like Milton Freedman’s negative income tax, I worry that these “poor” people will spend the pre-bate on everything but the essentials.  Therefore I suggest we make it a voucher limiting how the pre-bate can be spent.  However, I would only recommend this change to incentivize the poor earn more money so they will no longer need the pre-bate.

Funding the pre-bate: I see the pre-bate as a form of welfare which could replace many other forms of financial assistance programs, including food stamps and unemployment.  This is only a possibility though.  This new tax code does not affect Medicare and Social Security, except how it is funded.  Since you are no longer paying the payroll tax, America’s two favorite programs will need to be funded out of the Federal Governments general revenues.  So aside from how Social Security and Medicare are funded, the programs will be generally untouched with the possibility of forcing congress to be more fiscally responsible with these programs.

 No way to two Tax codes: Some are thinking that the politicians may try to pull a fast one and keep the Federal income tax.  It can’t because in the Fair Tax legislation it has a mandate that repeals the 16^th amendment to the Constitution that gives the government the authority to tax our income.  So that goes bye-bye.  Is this new system constitutional?  Yes under article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which allows congress to implement taxes to fund the government.  To my knowledge this form of taxation falls as a combination of impost and excises taxes.  This also means that all taxes under the fair tax must be uniform as dictated by the Constitution which governs the implementation of impost and excises taxes.  So there’s no funny business of charging only certain goods and services while excluding others which is a form of corruption.

Conclusion:  This is the Fair Tax.  It taxes everything equally, provides for your keeping your wealth and everyone paying taxes ensuring fair and equal treatment under the law as dictated in the Constitution.  The poor are still looked after and creates more opportunities for businesses to grow. Sure that 23% looks nauseating, but you have more wealth in your pocket and you determine how much you pay in taxes by how much you buy as it is mandatory that on your receipt to show how much went to the Federal Government.  A "Fair Tax" for a country that loves a fair deal.   

Issue 57 Other issues: Gay Marrige?! April 17, 2013

I thought the gay marriage debate was all about people being uncomfortable with the fact that people of the same sex would marry. Something that violates religious tenants (well id violates it for most religions). But, I was wrong. There is one additional issue concerning gay marriage that I didn't even think of, but those who fear it did.

The Fear: Death of Marriage: What those against gay marriage also fear is that it will make people less inclined to marry in the first place. They feel that, in time, the idea and concept of gay marriage (along with multi person marriages to follow) will disrupt the nature of the sacrament of marriage. It is feared that once it becomes main stream that people will not care about the idea and concept of marriage and simply move from partner to partner once they tire of the person they are with.

The Fear 2: What about the kids: This is mainly an issue, not just because the religious sacrament of marriage will be eroded, but because of the traditional family unit. Every study shows that a traditional family creates happier healthier children. This is also true for some gay couples who have children who have been allowed to adopt (whether any of the studies are biased in favor of gays or of traditional marriage I don't know, so take this with a grain of salt). So to another degree they fear broken homes if marriage (the commitment it brings tying two people together) begins to degrade.

My Opinion: For both of these fears, I agree that the potential is there for both to occur. We want people to be committed to one another and more importantly to be committed to raising a family together (gay, straight, or multi). Family units provide a child with the best chance of growing up and achieving success due in part to the fact that a father and mother (or dad and dad/mom and mom) are always around to influence their child so that they are disciplined to follow the path to success more often. In other words they set them straight (not the marriage thing, the right path in life thing). However, the marriage concept is already being eroded as time goes on. It has really nothing to do with gay marriage and more to do with our associating marriage less and less with religion (gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause). Governments in the past have tried to support traditional marriage via laws and through tax relief (part of the reason gays want to marry is so that they can be recognized under the law and achieve those benefits and privileges), due to many at the time supporting the traditional marriage structure. However, this may all have to change for if it becomes re-recognized as part of faith, these benefits may change or be discarded. Worry not, as there are still ways to recognize that two people co-own property, and have a say in medical and what not. It's called a contract which can include property sharing agreements, last wills in testament and more. So even if government gets out of the business (I wish it would) there are other ways to get around the issue.

Conclusion: Our secular society has caused marriages downfall. Slowly but surely religion is failing to attract parishioners as faith has stagnated into people just moving with the motions like a robot. The anti gay marriage folks are better off arguing that marriage is a religious sacrament to stop gay marriage (however some groups within the protestant faith do marry gay couples). Do I have a problem with gay couples? No, I just have a problem when government tries to tell me or anyone who can marry who (age is an exception, no 9 year olds marring 40 year olds) like they did before the civil rights movement blocking mixed race couples. If you want to fix marriage, in my opinion, fix the faiths so that people stop acting like robots in a church and get marriage out of government’s hands. I do understand though that some pro marriage people see government as a way of supporting and enforcing traditional marriage, but like anything with government, a law can be changed when it suits the politicians needs. It is foolish to put any faith in government to support traditional marriage, let alone gay marriage. Government sees marriage as a source of revenue, not as a binding union between two people (3 or more once multi person marriages come to be recognized). Both sides are being used from my perspective and it disgusts me. Just get government out of the business; it is not there place to being taking money off the happiness of others.

I am done talking about gay marriage for now, unless something else comes up that I believe is important. If there is a particular issue concerning marriage you, my dear readers, would like me to address, write a comment here or on my face book page and I will answer it as soon as possible either in a reply or a blog post. Thanks as always for reading.

Issue 56 What is a Terrorist? April 16, 2013

As you all probably know, America has been attacked on it own soil once again. This time in Boston Massachusetts via two improvised explosive devices (IED). So before I begin I ask that you pray for the victims and there families.

Let us begin: Terrorism is a tactic. The tactic, as the name implies, is to inspire fear in order to achieve a goal. There are many definitions of terrorism, some extensive and broad, while others are narrow. Most governments have their own definition, with some having multiple due to different branches of the military and intelligence agencies each having their own. There is no international definition of what a terrorist is, mainly to provide flexibility in an attack so as to label something terrorism when it is politically suitable, or when needed to bring extra attention to a situation. For our purposes a broad definition is appropriate as terrorism is no longer limited to achieving political goals.

Terrorism: The imminent threat of violence and/or mayhem or the use of violence or act to cause mayhem in the furtherance of a goal.

This is the broadest definition I can come up with that encompasses all aspects of modern day terrorism. We no longer just deal with mass murder and assassinations, but with the instigation of riots, cyber attacks, intimidation and just about anything to inspire terror on a grand scale so that the person, group, or government can achieve there goals.

Terrorist: This is a person(s) or government that instigates the threats or creates the havoc. They will always have some sort of goal. For Islamic Terrorists in the Middle East it is a Caliphate and the removal of western influences they find damaging to their culture. For Jewish Terrorists in Israel it is hatred of Palestinians. In Darfur, it is Sudan sponsoring gangs to kill African Muslims while they themselves are Muslims too, but they claim to be Arab. The Unabomber sought a new society. In Columbine it was the two shooters lashing out against being bullied. For a government, it is the removal of an obstacle to the furtherance of power. No matter what, a terrorist has some sort of goal. If no one realizes that goal however, then their attacks and provocations have failed. Also, if there is no goal or reason behind the attacks, then the person or persons are just simple murders who wish nothing but harm to their fellow man.

Brief History: Terror was first coined during the reign of terror in France during the French Revolution. It became an actual military tactic in WWI when Germany used their zeppelins (airships) to bomb London in the hope that the peoples fear would make them put pressure on the British Government to end the war. Modern Guerilla style attacks where developed in Ireland by the IRA, copied from raiding tactics used in war. They also where one of the first to use IEDS (the Black Hand terrorist group that killed Arch Duke Ferdinand used a hand grenade and guns). Then the Tamil Tigers began using suicide bombings in their terror campaign against their government. Al Qaeda copied these techniques and evolved them further, combining classic military and guerilla style tactics with both modern and low tech weaponry to maximize fear and bloodshed. Al Qaeda is one of the first international terrorist organizations that operate on its own. A group such as Al Qaeda has never existed, to my knowledge, without first being created and used by a government.

With the advent of Al Qaeda and its copy cats, the world was sent into a frenzy. War was no longer Country against Country, but also Country against international organizations. This left a gap in how to prosecute terrorists. Originally, terrorists where treated as civilians and thus tried in a traditional court of law. However, these terrorists create their own battlefields and thus can be considered combatants and have the Geneva conventions applied to them. But this matter is not settled as terrorists fall in-between the definition of criminal and soldier.

As Terminology: The word terrorist is sometimes used as a broad term to describe an entire group. It is not intentional, but is sometimes used to demean an entire people, i.e. Muslim terrorists. However, while we all know that terrorists are in fact a minority, people still use the term. Well the reason is, because there are just too many to list. We have to think of terrorists as a term in the form of the roots of a family tree. Its branches branch out into political terrorism, religious terrorism, and social terrorism and so on. Then this tree branches out further to describe specific groups like Muslim, Jewish, anarchist, communist and the like which are then followed by the specific groups like Al Qaeda, the IRA, and the Tamil Tigers. Everyone on the family tree is a terrorist, it is not meant to look down upon a particular faith or group, it is just that it is easier to say terrorist. It is fine if you wish to be politically correct, but at least come up with a new word first.

Conclusion: Terrorism will never go away. It has existed even before the word was ever invented. At this point in our history we have to decide the best way to treat the problem so as to balance both safety and security with our freedoms. However, the best option in my opinion is learn about the terrorists and their goals and then debunk their ideology or beliefs. In short, I say know thy enemy and then defeat them by destroying every reason they have to fight in the first place. This will leave only the radicals left whose beliefs will never change. From there we can isolate them or capture and/or kill these now ostracized members if it becomes necessary. Counter and anti terrorism is not just about killing them all or putting them to justice, it is information warfare at its most basic and creative level. It will be a long battle and a hard one. So God bless the soldiers in harms way, both in my country America and abroad in this never ending war.

For more information see the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counter Insurgency Manual.

Issue 55 Freedom of the Press April 15,2013

What is the freedom of the press to you? Does it mean a reporter can just spout any form of nonsense when ever they choose? The Freedom of the Press is part of free speech, but in this case plays an important function, keeping government in check.

As free speech: The freedom of the press is a form of speech that is published for all to see. It is no longer just a simple news paper story, but television, and electronic media. It is a news station, a work of satirical literature (both in print and visual), a television show, a documentary and so on. There really is no limit to what today can be considered part of the freedom of the press. Even this blog counts as part of that freedom.

Limits: As always, there are limitations. A reporter cannot say something that is not true about an individual. That would be considered lying. Due to this, a reporter in a court of law may be sued in court (at least here in the U.S. they can) as any lie can potentially ruin someone’s life. In the U.S. however, there is a double standard as celebrities and people in highly visible public positions must prove malice (intentional destruction of ones reputation in this instance) in order to defend themselves from a false truth. The double standard here was established to protect all reporters as a single celebrity or public official suing can ruin the life of a reporter and create fear in the minds of other reporters and commentators to the point they can no longer report a story accurately.

They can be used: If any one has grown up in a totalitarian society, or a society that values something more than freedom, then they know that a news agency can be censored. What is censorship? It is the manipulation of what is written or viewed by the general public, usually by a government. In America, there used to be wide spread censorship, restricting the types of characters portrayed on the television or written into books. They could even limit what news reporters said. In countries run by dictators, the news media is a mouth piece for government, squawking like a parrot when the government so desirers. There is also self censorship. Some agencies do it out of decency, as there viewers watch them because they expect a certain level of decorum. Others however have an agenda. Unfortunately, more so today than in the past I would think, that a news agency would manipulate its stories to better support their ideological agenda. Some may even use it to destroy there opposition by telling how biased a particular group is to discredit them and ultimately cause them to lose enough money to shut down. Then there is others still that would manipulate the story so as to inflate it (which I generally see on a slow news day when I watch the news), but is sometimes used to give attention to a particular person or group.

Thank Goodness for the Internet: With the internet being so pervasive in today’s society it has become that much harder to lie to the public. Every blogger, writer, film maker, and artist has the potential to be a reporter and/or commentator. Information cannot be hidden anymore as once that information has spread, that’s it, it can no longer be covered up and the victim of that leak is now on damage control duty. But there is one negative, the truth can be overwhelmed by lies. If people hear a lie long enough, they think it is true and thus when presented with the actual truth, they think it a lie.

Information and truth are now a battlefield. Reporters have a very rough road ahead as the established media like the New York Times, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and Fox News must adapt or die out. Every person has a preferred media source. Some in my generation prefer John Stewart (a comedian) over the likes of Anderson Cooper and Bill O'rielly. But it is up to us to try and take the time to sort out the truth from the lies otherwise; we become lambs to the slaughter. It is up to the new generation of reporters to establish a moral high ground so as to not manipulate the news and maintain an air of professionalism. Truth must be what we seek from the press; otherwise we disgrace the freedom of the press and turn it softly into a tool of tyranny.

Issue 54 President Obama and CPI April 12,2013

The President has proposed a new budget (again). And he has put out an olive branch to the Republicans that even they have not considered, reforming how inflation is measured so that it is more accurate.

Inflation: This term is used to describe when money loses value. It occurs when there is more money in the system, or other special circumstances occur to cause this financial hardship. Why does inflation occur you ask? Well, the value of money works on the same principles as supply and demand, the more money you have equals less demand and thus less value. The less money there is equals more demand and thus a higher value. Governments typically prefer higher inflation as people get more money even though it is worth less than it really is which in turn allows them to pay off debt easier. However, the negative of this is that the prices of all goods and services skyrocket.

CPI: CPI stands for Consumer Price Index. It is one of many ways to measure for inflation. In this case, CPI is used by the federal government of the United States to determine, based on inflation, how much welfare money is given out, how much government assistance you get with health care and other services, and even how much a senior gets in Social Security and Medicare. Depending on how it is adjusted it can decrease or even increase benefits for those individuals who need aid. For the case of President Obama, he wants the CPI to measure inflation more accurately and thus causing benefits to increase for mostly poorer individuals, and decrease benefits for richer individuals. There for it is a step in the right direction for reforming welfare and other handouts, while saving the government lots of money.

Opposition Response: Republicans were astonished by this olive branch. Every interview I saw had them wondering what the President was thinking. Prior to the Presidents proposal the Republicans supported the Ryan Budget that also changed CPI, but not for anyone over the age of 50. Thus in their budget, only my generation would actually be affected. Republicans only wanted my generation affected out of concern seniors could not cushion themselves from the change in payments as many seniors today need to work even in their 80s to make ends meat.

Political risk: President Obama is putting himself out on a limb politically here. Then again, he does not need to be re-elected, but his fellow Democrats do as well as Republicans. Let’s face it; America’s senior citizens vote the most.

I applaud President Obama for this, even if I do not care for the rest of his budget as it increases taxes again, and even places America in more debt. But it does show he wants a legacy to be remembered. So in this case, I hope he actually does work with Republicans rather than demeaning his opposition into place. However, this proposal still might go no where as the Republicans and Democrats must still agree to the rest of the budget, though I think that is unlikely. Perhaps some actual smart person in D.C. will propose to do one-for-one trades the President getting Republicans and Democrats to reduce tax credits and deductions for the rich in exchange for an altered and more accurate CPI. Republicans will never give on raising taxes, but would be willing to lower them if it is for the middle class and lower. There is wriggle room; it’s just that both sides have to find it first.

Issue 53 Gay Marrige April 11, 2013

Gay Marriage is probably one of the most major issues of our life time, when it comes to religion that is. For those who are of faith, this for most is not an issue of questioning the love of the couple, but an infringement of government onto ones faith.

Marriage is a religious sacrament: Last I checked marriage belonged to religion. Government, due to the separation between Church and state is not allowed to touch it. But, government does because it makes them lots of money. Originally, even in the United States, countries had established State religions. In the U.S. the Quakers had Pennsylvania, Mormons Utah, and the list continues. It allowed the States not the Federal Government to decide who could be married. Also, before and after the Civil War in America, the States ability to marry individuals was abused to prevent couples with different skin colors, races, ethnicities and faiths from marrying. However, the State is no longer allowed to have an established religion today. There is a wall between what the Church may do and what the government may do. And thus I argue that the government cannot say who can and who cannot get married.

Yes they will get married: Some may be thinking that if they let the churches decide then it locks out gays from getting married and even atheists for that matter. That is wrong. There are churches in the protestant faith, and other "dissident" churches that will marry gay couples. Let us also not forget that groups of non-believers may still be married, they just have to due a ceremony, and they do not need a church. Basically, everyone is already free to marry. Government just has to get out of the way.

Polygamy: Multi person marriages will also probably happen. Laws against it are entirely unenforceable as they will just call the other partner their boy friend or girlfriend. It is an inevitable result after the gay marriage issue and again, this is a sacrament, not a government institution. The government has no place telling anyone who can marry.

OK, I lied a little: There is one area that government does have a say on this issue and that is age. We don't want 9 year olds being married to 40 year olds. Age is the only exception for it is protecting children from perverts and despicable adults. This issue is entirely separate from the gay marriage issue and any other form of marriage for that matter. Laws protecting children from sexual acts are already on the books so there is really no fear here in the United States of that happening (legally), and if it does occur we arrest a bunch of people. Even libertarians will not stand for a child being sexually assaulted.

Conclusion: Gay marriage is going to happen. It harms no one at all, and in fact just legitimizes the love of the two individuals involved. Multi person marriages are also going to happen at some point as well as it is unenforceable. But remember, these marriage groups have nothing to do with under age sexual acts, tying them together is simply wrong.

Marriage is an act of faith. Most laws if marriage is finally kicked out of government will remain in place (though they may be renamed). We have nothing to fear at all from gay marriage, or even multi person marriages. Children will be protected from that select minority. I am strait, and intend to marry a girl and have a very nice and happy family, but I am not going to interfere in someone else's faith or love and neither should government.

Issue 52 Let them Gamble April 10, 2013

Yes that is correct, I say let anyone and everyone gamble unhindered. I speak out to you all as a libertarian who believes in the freedom of choice, and in this case about gambling.

We should not be arrested for betting: In some parts of the United States gambling is 100% illegal. And thus, people are subject to police raids. These raids are entirely uncalled for as most of the time the gamblers are just friends getting together for a game. Is it so wrong to gamble amongst friends?

The Cheats: I do understand that in some instances Gambling in the basement of ones home or in the back room of a basement can become a decent business. Also, I understand that the draw of money can cause some owners of these unlicensed gambling halls to rig their gaming systems. But, that is when we actually should be calling the cops to check the legitimacy of those claims as, then and only then that would be theft. We should not make common people criminals over a non criminal act such as running a small business. Sure, there are issues with taxation, but maybe it's time to start rethinking a tax system that punishes people for trying to make a living. Maybe we are just doing too much harm.

It's not income: Well the winning of the gambler is not real income. The gambling house, when people loose and buy stuff, that is income. However, gambling is un-earned money and thus should not be taxed. Government has become very greedy as they try to balance their books and has looked to take from every profitable person and business. So who do they turn to first, the businesses that they deem disreputable like gambling? People spending money to gamble is something adults should be allowed to do unhindered. It is their money and they should be able to spend it how they please, even if that is to risk said money to gain some more. The lotto is also a form of gambling, but people’s lucky win should not be punished by stealing most of it via taxation. It makes no sense for me.

The Fear: The main fear is that people will become addicted to gambling. This small segment of the population who would shall be cared for regardless, but it is not enough to hold back an entire population from their freedoms. People think that by limiting how often people gamble and where they can gamble will solve the problem. Well it never has, and it never will. The addicted gambler will always be an addicted gambler. We can help them after the fact, but it is useless to try and stop them. Society itself punishes the act, by descending into poverty, and their family leaving them. It becomes our duty as people to help them, but limiting and suppressing the freedom of association, to make a better life; to take a chance will not ever solve the problem.

In the United States, Internet gambling is illegal because it is felt that the gambling addicts will destroy themselves. Though, these victims are used as an excuse to protect the established gambling halls like in Nevada and New Jersey. It is corrupt capitalism that prevents private individuals from being able to have a game of chance, while fearing the cops. Can we stop making people victims of our own naïveté? I do not gamble, but I am not someone who is going to shut a good business down that provides jobs to people. I just want to stop making people into criminals. So let them gamble if they choose.