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.

Issue 262 Other Telepresence applications January 31, 2014

Aside from hospitals, businesses and court rooms, the telepresence technology can be applied to a multitude of other places in society. Here are just a few.

Marriage: Say you want to be married by a priest or a particular type of minister, the telepresence robot or device can allow for just that anywhere in the world. You can have a priest marry you on the top of Mt. Everest without having the priest clime to the top with you. In addition, say your mother in law is bed ridden and cannot attend the wedding in person, the robot can move around and interact at the wedding for her while she lies comfortably at home. Sure it removes some of the intimacy from a wedding but for those that are not picky it can be very useful.

Hospitalized/bedridden: This technology lets the individual get out without ever leaving their bed. They can use the robot version of this technology to meet and interact with family anywhere. If applied, the robot could even be able to go to the super market for you with you monitoring its progress at home. It allows interaction with the cashier and objects (if equipped with a mechanical arm). Additionally, the robot can be used to allow the bedridden to do house chores if suitably equipped. This grants a certain level of independence to the sick and elderly.

Search and rescue: Search and rescue teams are using more and more robots and they can be equipped with telepresence devices to allow interaction between the victim of a disaster and themselves. Basic human interaction can be key to calming the victim and even helping to diagnose the physical condition of the victim before help even arrives. This allows for rescuers to prep much faster to the needs of the victim to treat there injuries and understand the victims overall condition as the rescue continues.

Prison visitation: For many prisoners, the human interaction of knowing people still care for them on the outside is essential to keeping them from returning to crime. However, it can be hard for many families of these prisoners to make the trip to visit there loved ones and a simple phone call may still be lacking. As such, telepresence could help with that. For one, making face to face contact with your loved ones (even via computer) can enhance that the overall experience to allow for that much needed human interaction. Additionally, certain prisoners could be allowed to have a telepresence robot attend say their sons or daughter basketball game or wedding even if they cannot be there themselves due to there incarceration. This too will help prisoners not miss out on what is going on in the outside world and keep that human connection to there loved ones. Obviously the use of the telepresence device is a privilege to be reserved to only the most well behaved prisoners.

Conclusion: As you can see, the applications that this technology can be applied to are only going to grow. Of course there will be social issues to deal with as we use the telepresence machines as surrogates to our real selves. This can be worked out however as we proceed further with this technology and its increasing potential.

Issue 261 Telepresence court January 30, 2014

You may have heard of the word telepresence or even read my article here on my blog about it. For those who don't know what it is, it is the use of a remote operated robot or device where a doctor or a boss in a company can have it move around and conduct day to day business without ever leaving the office. It does have limitations, but for those jobs that don't require a hand's on approach it works. In this case, could the same concept be expanded into the court room?

With respect to prisoners: Right now tax payers pay our government thousands of dollars a year with some of that money going to pay for what goes on in a court room. One of the most expensive aspects of this is the protecting of a prisoner or suspect to and from the jails for prosecution, hearings or business that requires a defendant to be in the court room in general. As such, the telepresence device could be used in the defendant’s stead. This meets with the Constitutional requirement that stipulates that the defendant must be able to face his/her accusers. The robot thankfully does just that via its camera, listening device and speaker for when the defendant wishes to speak. As such, no longer will we have to deal with the cost of transporting potentially dangerous criminals or protecting them while in transport to and from the jail and the court room.

This benefit also expands to defendants who committed crimes in multiple States. So say you have a defendant who committed a crime in both New York and Georgia (or even another country), the telepresence device can be used to have the defendant be present for both hearing and trials in both places and simultaneously if necessary. Again, this saves money as police no longer have to escort the defendant via aircraft or car from one State (or country) to another. This saves countless dollars in just transport costs alone.

Additionally, many juries judge a defendant also on looks. An example is from presidential elections, the younger looking guy usually wins because they are more attractive. In the case of the court room it works the same way, the young/good looking get an edge over the ugly. This technology removes the looks factor to make it harder to make a decision on the person’s guilt based on looks and puts the burden of proof much more squarely on the facts.

With respect to Judges and lawyers: Again, this technology allows for the lawyers or Judges to appear in court without actually being there physically. Say the best lawyer in the country is in Texas, but the trial is in Alaska. The telepresence device can allow that lawyer to be there to defend the client without having to even make the trip. How about the Judge getting into an accident or it’s a special federal court that exists only in one place? This allows the judge to be present even if incapacitated of if he/she needs to be in a specific place at a key specific time. So if you are pulled over for a ticket and want to dispute it, you may be able to dispute the ticket right there on the side of the road with the judge via telepresence.

Conclusion: This is a fun and interesting technology that has many applications. The court room is just one place that can use telepresence that will in turn save the taxpayers allot of money. See you tomorrow for other intriguing applications for this technology.

Issue 260 Radicalized by cop! January 29, 2014

This topic is controversial. Police officers and intelligence agencies have been contacting Muslims who seem to be sympathetic to the Al Quada's and similar group’s ideology. At this point, the police/intelligence official pretends to be a recruiter from a terrorist group and try to "recruit" the Muslim individual. Usually, they set up a fake meet up to buy bomb making materials. But here is the controversial part. If the police never made contact with that individual, would they have become radicalized in the first place?

Pros: Those in favor of this method of policing and capturing terrorists point out that the individual being targeted was sympathetic to the terrorist cause in the first place. Also, they claim that it was better that they made contact with the individual over an actual terrorist recruiter where they may have actually carried out a terrorist act. Overall, those in favor of this method believe they are protecting our nation.

Cons: People who are against this method say this is a form of entrapment. In other words, the police are setting the individual up to become a criminal in the first place. As such, those against this policy believe that the individual would never have needed to be arrested in the first place if the individual was not radicalized by the officer or intelligence official.

Fact: We cannot prove or disprove if the individual would have become radicalized on there own or not. If taken to the Supreme Court however, this policing method may be ruled as entrapment and thus mean the program will be put to a halt.

Conclusion: I personally do not care for how this program is being carried out. It is disturbing that the police are actually creating terrorists out of innocent people. What I feel that they should do is monitor the individual to see if they make contact with an actual terrorist recruiter. At this point examine the conversations and if it seems that the individual being monitored is being radicalized then replace the recruiter with an officer who will now play the roll of the recruiter. However, before setting up a situation that would allow for an arrest, the officer should make attempts to de-radicalize the subject in question. If successful, the suspect would be monitored for an adequate period of time to insure they are no threat to society. However, if this fails, then you go in and bust the suspect by finding out what they are doing to carry out the criminal act with the police playing the roll of the recruiter still, but at this point leading them to stores or facilities that can be monitored by the police and insure the plot fails if one should emerge. As to the actual recruiter, find him/her and remove there ability to radicalize other individuals. This in my opinion is how it should be done.