Issue 669 Your right to die September 2, 2015

If assisted suicide is legal, does this mean you have a right to die?  Let us discuss.

Do we have a right to die?:  Assisted suicide in hospitals is just that, suicide.  This form of suicide is meant to aid people in ending their physical suffering from disease or catastrophic injury. But if we have a right to have assisted suicide for physical pain, does this mean we have a right to end our lives any time we wish?  Basically, if you have a right to end your own suffering with help, then you have a right to end your suffering without help.  Additionally, you may commit suicide for whatever reason you now wish.  People can commit suicide for emotional, or even for insurance money as well (if a person has a right to die, then the insurance company must hand over the money in case of a suicide).  Basically, once they allowed assisted suicide to become legal, it becomes a double standard to allow only one form or one reason for suicide and not the others.  In other words, the door for the argument that we can choose how and when we die has been opened.

Conclusion:  With some States permitting assisted suicide it makes the argument easier to allow for assisted suicide for emotional problems.  Once that part of the argument has passed, it then leaps to the next level which makes it that insurance money cannot be denied beneficiaries of the suicide victim.  Basically, the law opens up lawsuits for this to happen.  Once this occurs, it can be surmised that people would be allowed to commit suicide on their own, and even given ways of doing so which cause the least amount of pain and suffering.  This will also mean special hospital rooms or other special facilities so that it can be proven that a person committed suicide and was not murdered (for insurance purposes and to negate the need for a criminal investigation).  Basically, you will be allowed to commit suicide so long as no one is harmed in the process.  This is the logical conclusion of the right to die debate.  The only issue left now is for someone to sue for the right to commit suicide for emotional trauma for it to occur and cause the dominos to fall into place.

Issue 668 Abortion: Potentially Bannable?! September 1, 2015

This issue will look at some facts about how many abortions are conducted at each stage of pregnancy and implications of abortions at each stage.  Let us begin.

Abortion facts:

1) In the first week to two weeks, the egg is not fertilized. The end of the 2nd week once the menstrual period starts to end is when a women is most likely to get pregnant.  As such, once sex occurs at the end of the menstrual period, the women has the highest chance to become pregnant (occurring in the third week at the end of menstruation).  An egg and sperm meet in the fallopian tubes at which time conception occurs. From there the fertilized egg commences cell division and descends the fallopian tubes.  Sperm which lives for up to five to six days may not have interacted with the egg yet however for the egg must be far enough down in the tube for this to occur.

Hormone treatments like birth control which prevent periods and the egg falling aid in preventing the fertilization of the egg.  Thus it acts as a form of contraception and is not abortion (I am fine with all forms of contraception that I know of). The morning after pill prevents the fertilized egg from settling in the uterine wall once it descends and can potentially be considered an abortion pill, but that is because it prevents the fertilized egg from latching onto the uterine wall.   Depending on your views, the morning after pill is abortion, but you are not considered pregnant until the fertilized egg has latched onto the wall.

2) Once latched to the uterine wall the fertilized egg develops further.  Upon week five the nervous system develops and can, depending on how fast development occurs, actually feel pain.  On week’s six to seven, the heart forms, limbs develop and sensory organs like eyes and ears begin to develop.  This is where right to life people want to be with, with respect to compromises.

In week five (their ideal goal) they want it banned for the child can feel pain.  Though some will settle for the heart as the heart pumping is generally a recognized symbol of a living being, and is most easily understood.  As such, abortion if it were to be banned at a stage of development, it would most likely be based on when the child is most recognizable as a living human, which would be once the heart forms in weeks six and seven and begins to beat.  Up to the first 12 weeks is the 1st trimester with 89 to 91% of all abortions taking place.

3) Weeks 13 to 27 is where final development of the body before growing ever larger.  7.8% of abortions happen here.  In this instance, the abortions here are largely unnecessary however as the woman's life is not in danger at all as far as what I have read is concerned.

4) With respect to the third trimester, this is where abortion is banned save for a woman's life being in danger.  In this case, only 1% to 1.4% of abortions occur here.  What should be understood as well is that as technology progresses, the need for this exception of saving the mother's life continues to shrink (thank God for science).

Obviously, after the third trimester, the baby is born. 

At this point I would like to add some facts about rapes and pregnancies from the Washington Post article "The claim that the incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy is ‘very low’".  In this case the article cites a 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, where 4,008 adult women were interviewed, with only five percent of them becoming pregnant among the ages of 12 to 45.  The study also included factors like drugs and alcohol, and was designed around finding out about actual sexual abuse (the definitions of rape actually varies per State and may include voluntary partners who may be a few years apart, and potentially even adultery which is still considered a sex crime in some places).  The study was done over the course of three years.  Based on this data from the article, it can be proposed that we can safely ban abortion even in light of potential rape victims as an exception and thus limit the abortion to the first trimester, or even before week five potentially depending on how conservative you are with science and beliefs.

(64,000 women were raped between 2004 and 2005, [3,200 potential pregnancies from rape here].  13 million in 2010 were either raped or were assaulted with intent to rape, but the article says that because of the varying definitions of rape, that 13 million is about half of what it is.  As such, taking that number [including attempted rape] 325,000 women potentially got pregnant from the assaults)

Conclusion:  So it is possible to ban abortion from week five on to uphold life when the nerves form.  It is possible to compromise to get it bannable on week six because of the heart being formed.  Before week five though is a push, and requires people to know more about their own biology and thus science to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place.  

People should be given information into ways to prevent becoming pregnant in the first place to negate the inevitable keeping of first trimester abortions for at least the first half.  However the 2nd trimester is bannable and the third looks likely to be bannable as well as technology advances to keep both mother and child alive in instances of potential life endangerment (remember, only about one percent are done in the third trimester).  So whether you believe through science or through religion, abortion at certain stages can be potentially banned.

Issue 667 Selling Federal Property August 31, 2015

As you may be aware, selling unused federal land comes with red tape.  Here I will give you my readers a brief outline of what must be done step by step to sell federal land.

The Steps:

1) First, the agency willing to sell the property must make sure no other federal agency wants the property.

2) If no federal agency wants it, then the State government and the local governments must say if they want it or not.

3) Next if no government wants it, then non-profit organizations have the opportunity to say if they want it or not.

4) The final step is to see if the land can be used as a homeless shelter (note: every building can be used as a homeless shelter).

With the 77,000 underutilized and 1/3 of all these properties not in use, it is a wonder why we are not paying even more taxes for the use and upkeep of these properties.

Conclusion:  This red tape in government has prevented the government from selling the land at premium prices which can be used to support government spending initiatives, or be used to help pay the national debt.  Legislation is being proposed (though not getting anywhere) to cut this process down.  Personally, if the legislation says that the federal agency can't simply sell it outright with the money being given to the treasury afterwards, or having the treasury being able to seize the land to sell it to the highest bidder without restrictions, then the politicians are wasting theirs and our time.  Sell the land, and sell it now.  We are tired of wasting our money on useless crap.

Issue 666 My Ideal tax structure August 28, 2015

Taking all I have wrote this week and from the past on taxes, I present to you an ideal tax structure in my opinion that is fair, and the least obtrusive to people.  Let's begin.

The ideal structure:  First of all, all forms of taxation save sales and property taxes will be banned by law.  This is to prevent the chances of the government bureaucrats getting too greedy. 

 Sales taxes will be on the final sale of goods exclusively.  So only the consumer pays at the retail level, not businesses who buy the couch to sell it later or the car company buying parts to build their cars.  As such, with taxation and cost associated with those taxes out of the way, goods will become cheaper to buy or remain the same price once the sales tax is applied.  It will need a constitutional amendment to apply so that all goods that are sold in the United States are taxed and that they are taxed all at the same rate without exception.  Sales taxes shall be exclusive to the Federal budget and can act as an economic indicator for economic strength, and the federal government will now have a vested interest in increasing commerce in the U.S. as it will actually increase their revenue. Needless to say, no one can escape paying such a tax and thus even criminals will pay along with tourists.

Property taxes will be on the square footage of the land owned by a property owner. It will not be based on the value of the home or the actual living space in the home, but will be solely based on the land owned.  This insures that the tax is fair as if you own a big house but little land, you are paying more over potentially someone with a slightly smaller home with lots of land.  This ensures that there are no fluctuations in tax values and thus protects governments from lost revenue and the property owners  from being unable to afford to pay their taxes from year to year (basically they know exactly what to give each year).  This tax shall be exclusive to the local governments and be based on paying for the upkeep of roads, police, firehouses, public schools, public hospitals and the maintenance of the sewers, water and power distribution systems.  Basically, the essentials will be paid for where applicable via this tax.  The State government will also be funded through property taxes, except that they will get a portion of the money collected per year from each local government from the property tax system.  In this case, the local governments give the State governments a portion equal to the percentage of the population of the State within their borders.  So if Nassau County has 15% of the New York State population in it, they will give 15% of their revenue to the State capitol.  Also, the State government upon receiving all this money must carry on a budget that exists within the confines of the money given.  As such, they cannot spend more money than was given to them.  However, their budgets would be low as they need only provide for funds for State parks, and their portion of the interstate highway system.

If you notice I do not include welfare and the funds to pay for the salaries of the politicians (Representatives, Mayors, Governors Etc.) in this tax system.  I separate them for their importance.  See below for how they will work.

In this case, politicians in a given government (State officials with State, local with local) will not get any retirement ever, and their salaries will be based on the average salaries of the people living under their governance.  So if the average salary is $8.00 an hour, they will only receive $8.00 an hour in salary, but will only get that money at the end of the year.  Additionally, if the average salary fluctuates over the course of the year say from $8 to $10 to $7 and hour, then they will only get the equivalent of $7 an hours’ worth in money.  This is to ensure that if they want to get more money, their areas must be economically prosperous while removing the potential corruption of them increasing their salaries by taxing people more so that they may make a few extra dollars more. 

 With welfare, the poor will be able to be traded amongst the communities with job training and searching included to find them a living area where they would not end up homeless. In the meantime, people on welfare will maintain government facilities, and act as volunteer police, firemen and as other government personnel while receiving a small wage to help them afford to live (basically doubling as job training, and for providing welfare). In this case they will act almost as free labor to file documents, clean government buildings including police stations and hospitals and as laborers to maintain infrastructure while under the supervision of people who know what they are doing.  This insures they get a wide range of experiences to aid them in becoming skilled laborers.  If necessary, their property taxes will temporarily suspended to help them as well.  Additional support can come from the State government as well if requested by the local government, but will be done on a case by case basis.

 (Note: if a modern debtor’s prison comes to pass, that will be State run, along with all penitentiaries [unless otherwise approved by the State to be opened by a private business] in the borders of a State.  Note 2: Mental hospitals are to be run by the State [unless otherwise approved by the State to opened by a private business], and will also handle addiction cases if the State does not provide for special clinics where addicts can buy their drugs safely and use them safely there [these clinics are run by the State government as well, unless exceptions are made])

Conclusion:  This is my ideal system.  Just two forms of taxes for us to worry about.  Sales taxes we pay based on how much we spend, and property just goes to local government, thus eliminating the State taxes themselves.  Each ends up respecting their boundaries and this limits corruption and provides incentives for governments to allow for and even sponsor economic growth.  The State government mind you maintains its law making body status, and so does local to a degree, though the extent will have to be addressed as I write from the standpoint that we remove as much government as possible and even the laws capable of being passed by governmental bodies are severely limited to the obviously wrongful act like murder, rape, etc., but does not make other things illegal like limiting the height of a building, or licensing people to own a business.  The State should in my opinion should have the sole power to license very specific professionals like doctors, and lawyers.  Can such an ideal system be achieved that just boarders on anarchy but does not step into the chaos of anarchy?  Yes, but it will take a lot of effort and both public and political will.  In this case, we all need to basically become libertarian which will be hard as people have different values and tolerances.  All we can do is provide information, and hope people come to the same conclusions me and my fellow libertarians do.

Issue 665 Rent Should not be taxed August 27, 2015

Yes I said it.  Rent you pay to a landlord should not be taxed.  Here are my reasons.

Rent should be non-taxable:  Landlords dole out property, or apartments to people who otherwise cannot afford to buy regular homes.  In short, for low income earners they do a service by keeping these people housed and off the streets.  Additionally, the landlord may be earning a stipend from his/her tenants on his/her land, but it is not earned income.  In this case it is the tenants paying for the upkeep of the house or apartment, and to help the landlord pay the local taxes (usually property taxes) as per the contract to live there. The landlord need not lift a single finger to provide any service however, as he/she can simply hire an outside repairman or group to maintain the property for them.  Likewise, the tenants who live on the property, with the landlord's permission, can hire their own repairmen, or others to maintain the property for them.  As such, while the landlord owns the land, he/she is not necessarily providing a service to the tenants in the first place.  Thus, it can be said that the money gained from the tenants is not earned income and is instead unearned income.  By eliminating taxes on such people (the landlords and owners of apartment buildings) it enables them to potentially lower the rent, provide better services, begin to provide services or even buy additional homes/buildings to rent out.

Conclusion:  People may have misgivings about this due to people like Donald Trump being counted in this category.  In short, landlords and apartment managers have a bad stigma attached and successful ones a worse stigma.  However, these people provide a service to a community whether it be for the poor, or for the rich who otherwise would build gaudy mansions.  There is really no need to tax people with respect to rent as it is not earned, and thus taxes on it should cease to exist.

Issue 664 Interest should not be taxed August 26, 2015

Unearned income is another category that is currently taxed by the federal government.  But is this fair?  I say no, and here is why.

No interest tax:  Interest is a value we place on money that acts as a penalty or as an incentive.  For bank accounts and investments it is an incentive to build up your account to earn more money which allows the bank and the invested company(s) to use that money to support loans and business expansion.  With loans it is a penalty for not paying back the bank quickly enough, which allows the bank to gain back money they would lose from people who would renege on their debt.  In all cases, nothing is exchanged and no effort placed via work to garner such funds.  It is given, and it is a punishment, and thus is not actual income.   As such, the money gathered through interest on loans, the money given by banks in the form of interests for keeping your money in longer, and the interest on your investments which act as a thank you for putting your trust into the company you have essentially given a loan to, is not income.  This is the difference between earned and unearned income, and as such, unearned should not be taxed.

Conclusion:  This is all my opinion, but if you're not earning it via a job for selling your labor, then it is not income.  The way I see it is that interest that acts as a reward is a gift in the same way one receives a gift or inheritance.  Interest as a penalty is not income as it is just that, a penalty on someone for not paying money back the lender on time. Sure, this means big time investors will no longer be taxed and that banks will not be taxed on the money they get from people paying interest on their loans, but neither will you.  You will be free to keep all your money if you invest, or get interest from your bank account.  If you loan money and charge interest, you will not have to file it with the IRS or other tax bodies either if and when interest charges go into effect.  People will be freed from this form of taxation that in my opinion was designed to punish people who gather money through unorthodox means like interest.  People in my opinion were envious of these lucky investors and businessmen who did not have to work at small time jobs all their lives and build themselves up the traditional way.  These taxes on interest are taxes of envy, and I say remove them in all their unfairness and jealousy.

Issue 663 Property Taxes August 25, 2015

Property taxes are one of the fairest taxes in existence if they are done properly.  Here is how.

A good property tax:  Property taxes are based on the idea that the amount of property you own equals how wealthy you are (or if you go the historical route, you are renting the land from God [according to Thomas Paine]). Property taxes today are generally done based on value of a home, or based on the livable square footage in a home.  These forms though cause problems as they are not stable or fair.  They are not stable for if the values of the homes in an area shoots up, then people will have to pay massive amounts of taxes which they may not be able to afford.  Likewise, if values plummet, then the government loses needed revenue which are used to maintain services.  If you increase the living area in your home with an addition, then you also may be paying more whether you are taxed on your home's value or the square footage of living space.  Also, lest we forget, assessors must be sent out by the government to value the homes and check living space to accurately gauge how much to tax us all, which is expensive (an expense we have to pay for with our taxes). As such, this form of property tax is punitive in this sense. So what is the third option here?

The third option is not based on value or living space.  It is based on the square footage of land upon which the home sits on.  In short, it is not your home being taxed, but the land it sits on.  In this instance, you are on 1,000 square feet of land, and each square foot is taxed at a $1 a square foot.  Therefor you will only pay $1,000 a year in property taxes.   The only way that would change from year to year is if the government raises taxes per square foot.  As such, say they raise it to $2 a square foot on your 1,000 square foot piece of land. You will then pay $2000.  Mean time you can build up as much as you want with respect to your home without fear of raising your taxes or the government losing money either due to economic downturns and values falling.   In short, you may do whatever you want to your home and have a plannable expense in the form of your taxes.

Conclusion:  The property tax I described here is stable, and does not require additional costs to reinforce.  Additionally, it is a plannable expense.  So you know per year how much money to set aside to pay your property taxes.  It is a simplified system that accommodates everyone.  I do not believe that the Federal Government should have access to this revenue though.  In this instance it will be reserved to the Local governments who would then give a small percentage of their revenue based on the population size of their area to the State government.   So what do you think?  Want a fairer property tax?