Issue 46 Should the U.S. get rid of the 17th Amendment April 2, 2013

For those who know the United States Constitution, the 17th Amendment allows the people to directly elect their Senators to the U.S. Senate. Originally, Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures with the Governor of the States making temporary appointments until the Legislature finalized its decision. However, the 17th Amendment is like its counterpart the 16th Amendment, a piece of progressive ideology when they sought a pure democracy as opposed to a democratic republic. They felt that by letting people choose for themselves, they would be able to impose the other democratic changes they sought to create their ideal democracy. Of course that would occur by mobilizing voters to elect their chosen candidates. For President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democrat, he wanted a democracy similar to that of Great Britain's and thus he supported the 17th.

Unintended Consequences: Under the 17th, the Senators were free of the traditional pressures of the State governments. But their constituencies provided the same form of pressure that the House of Representatives faces on a daily basis, the whims of the traditional voter. Senators would no longer counteract the House of Representatives with the peoples will (for good or bad) but instead, to maintain power, embrace the voting public's will and as a result sacrifice the States as power slowly shifted to Washington D.C. As a result, the individual States are often bullied by the Federal Government with the Feds only offering money if the States do something in return. But, that something in return often causes the States to want for more money. So what are the States to do as they don't want to raise taxes (though that will be the inevitable result), they beg for more money. This has become an endless cycle in America that has allowed for massive debt and very angry tax payers.

Under the old system: If the 17th did not exist, America would be very different. For one there would be no Federal welfare programs that overburdened the States, no Federal government forcing States to beg for more cash, and much less bureaucratic waste in the form of departments and agencies that infringe on States rights and privileges.

You are probably wondering, would it really be that different? Well yes as for one, it is one less (or should I say two less) political campaigns we have to vote on. No longer would we be forced to aid the political parties financially (yes our tax payer money is spent to support them too, unfortunately) to nominate Senators. So at least we would be lied to less. But, it also means that all the legislation that hurts States rights would slowly disappear. If a Senator did not obey the State Legislature, a Senator would be recalled to answer for it. It sometimes even meant the Senator would be fired and replaced, thus never seeing a second term in office, let alone finishing his first six year term. There of course was a safety net for when the State legislature could not decide on who should be Senator, and thus the Governors of each State had the power to appoint a temporary Senator. Historically speaking, a State always had its two Senators irrespective of how dead locked a Legislature was.

Conclusion: The Senate by proxy at the time represented the people by proxy as they were chosen by representatives of the people, but at the same time protected the State and Federal government from laws and programs that would bankrupt the American government. Today, we just have the President to act as a counter balance, but today even the President is subject to the whims of people thanks in part to the technology that allows the people to watch everything and anything he/she does. So unfortunately, I believe that America is slowly devolving into a democracy with the trappings of a Republic. What do I mean by this? What I mean is that without the counter balances America will develop into mob rule. How can I say this you ask? Simple, without a counter balance to counter the whims of the people and that of the government itself, it will sub come to pressures coming at it from all directions, including financially. Therefore, if we don't act America will cease to exist as we know it.  As such, to counteract our downward spiral, I think that as an option, we can be rid of the 17^th Amendment.

Issue 45 The Four Taxes April 1,2013

As many of you are already aware, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to tax America's citizens. But, did you know that it only lists four taxes in the entire document. That’s right, depending on how you read the wording, the Federal government is either limited to those 4 or can tax us in what ever form they wish. So as to give you knowledge on what these taxes are, I list them and tell you all how they work.

Impost Tax: This tax is simple; it taxes all products coming into the United States at a specified rate.

Expost Tax: This tax is the opposite of an impost tax; it taxes all products leaving the United States.

Together these taxes form the basis of a tariff system, but according to the U.S. Constitution all Impost taxes must be equal regardless of country. Likewise Expost taxes must be set equal as well. These limitations where designed to prevent taxation from being used as a weapon to hurt trade and show favor or disfavor to a particular country save cutting off trade relations entirely. Basically, it prevented conflict with other nations by treating everything imported and exported equal in terms of taxation.

Excise Tax: This tax is much broader in scope as it is a tax on all goods and services. Like its, Impost and Expost counterparts, all must be taxed at the same rate. If you want a modern term, then a sales tax would be an appropriate representation. So long as money was exchanged for a good or service like land sales, paying for a lawyer, or simply buying food, it was taxed.

The limitation of making sure each of these taxes are set equal were and still is a stroke of genius (even if it is ignored today). It prevented taxation being used as a weapon, and prevented conflicts in trade both between nations and even between the States (like New York and New Jersey). But our last tax has no such limitations and we all despise it.

Income Tax: We pay this tax every single year based on the amount of money we make. It is not designed to treat people fairly or even businesses for that matter. It is set up to be a weapon to suppress and confiscate people’s wealth. Many people believe this tax should go away as it harms and suppresses small businesses, and aids in keeping the poor poor and the super rich rich. There is no equal treatment law in this tax as it was added during the Wilson Administration as the 16th Amendment. During that time period, the progressive party was in full swing (it has its ideology based in socialism, but was the foundation for modern liberalism. It wants equal treatment of everyone, but uses government to enforce any and all forms of social equality) and they saw the rich as the enemy.

The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution had already faced the income tax under the oppression of Great Britten during the colonial period, and thus they set forth a warning. In the Federalist papers they said that (I paraphrase) an income tax is impossible to support as the more a government spends trying to enforce it, the more money they loose until they have no money at all. Basically, just trying to enforce it will break the bank of any country eventually and make a person who simply forgets to pay their taxes or portion of a criminal. And thus why libertarians and conservatives want it gone (and that is not even including the living hell it creates by picking winners and losers in the free market system distorting it and creating more incentives for corruption).

Well, there you have it, the four legal taxes as per the United States Constitution. If and when possible I will post more posts like this to aid those who seek to bring government in line once again and make it responsible to the people. Information is power and I hope this helps.

Issue 44 Get Out of the U.N. March 29,2013

How best to describe the United Nations, Hmmmm. Once an icon designed to foster peace between nations, a failed corrupt organization, or a festive hive of scum and villainy. I think I will select the last one.

Corruption: The U.N. takes the money of nations to support its work, but not all of that money makes it to the desired destination. In fact, much of the money in the U.N. is used to prop up dictatorships which out number the members that are democracies. U.N. soldiers gathered from other nations form rape gangs while deployed. Food the U.N. gives out never reaches their intended recipients for the local government confiscates them to solidify their power. Money changes hands regularly to get what you want out of fellow nations. The U.N. is not about peace anymore, it is about power and manipulation.

Toothless Tiger: If the U.N. was a real organization dedicated to peace it would be taken more seriously. Nations of the world would try to settle disputes that they could not otherwise settle on their own. But, the U.N. is now about manipulation. Take the treaty of the seas that the U.N. is purporting. Designed to prevent disputes on mining and harvesting other natural resources at sea, it is now being used by China to take territory in Japan and Vietnam (the latter being one of their own allies). How about the International Criminal Court? It can be used to prosecute former world leaders for war crimes the moment they step out of power. This goes for all world leaders, and of course the standards are arbitrary and thus any leader of the world can be threatened with prosecution, both good and bad. Allow me to correct the title of this section, Toothless at maintaining peace, an expert in manipulation.

We need something new: What we need is a body that unites people, not nations. The people of a country with an evil dictator are not at fault for the crimes of their leader. We need an organization that promotes cultural exchange in the form of art, literature, athletics, sciences and math, and of course our shared history of the world. It would be and organization that is run exclusively (if aided by government) by democracies and donations from people around the world. It would support archaeological expeditions, under sea and space exploration and act as a single body from which that information is shared. If a person makes a new discovery, it would work with nations around the globe so that a proper patient is filed and recognized in all countries. It would take groups similar to the Peace Corps and make them an international body dedicated to helping rebuild after disasters, acting as teachers where there are none, and train people in ideas and techniques to improve their very lives. It would have a body established to aid the sick and infirm that resembles if not surpassing doctors without boarders (one of the few non corrupt programs run by the U.N.). But, alas, this is currently idealism.

Conclusion: No nation should be subject to the whims of another nation(s), if said nation(s) are corrupt and run by dictators. A nation should not have to give money to an organization that is now dedicated to manipulation and having brutes getting rich off the backs of the poor. There are so many examples of U.N. corruption that it would take multiple posts just to list them all (especially if you want at least some detail). The U.N., along with other international bodies are now failing. Is it not time to stop feeding the defunct, and corrupt and try something new?

Issue 43 Teacher Priests March 28,2013

I had previously discussed changes I would like to see in the Catholic Church as an institution, but only gave a preview of some other ideas I had to get more people involved in the church and at the same time for the Church to evolve itself.

1) The Church should provide exercise classes: Some of you may think why, but think about it. By having a healthy body it can aid in having a healthy mind. By the Church offering such a service, it attracts the health conscious and gives people an opportunity to learn healthy exercise habits. This service can even be turned into a kind of moving meditation with tie chi, yoga or Qi gong. Essentially, it would turn it into a hybrid mass and health class. Further, it gives people more opportunities to be involved with the Church and have something to do. I know that some of my friends see going to mass once a week as a burden, let alone going every single day. By providing this class, people like my friends may feel they get something more out of the Church and thus may see it as less of a burden.

2) Meditation: Back when I was preparing for my conformation, there was a special seminar where we had meditation. We envisioned ourselves on the road of life with the challenges we were facing and might face. But, we also tried to envision our faith itself and how it would get us through those challenges and aid our friends and family in doing so as well. I personally felt it was fantastic, and that this should be provided to people who would like another alternative to a traditional mass. Think about it, in meditation you can imagine yourself by Jesus' side, or even being one with the Holy Spirit.

3) Teach Healthy habits: This encompasses both eating foods and actions in every day life. Basically, the clergy would help younger members of the Church to know a good habit from a bad one (aka a vice) and aid parents when help is needed to council their children. But, with respect to eating, everyone wants to eat healthy that is suited for them. The Clergy would provide methods of tracking what you eat, how much you eat, and how healthy each item is. Long story short, they will help you to eat healthy and live healthy, because lets face it unhealthy parishioners is a bad thing.

4) Use Music: One of the coolest things about a Baptist Church is how they get every single parishioner involved in the mass. They do so with music, and it prevents the mass from turning, well, dull. Some people need that uplifting music to hone their faith and the Church should provide that experience. I'm not saying do away with traditional mass, but also embrace an alternative.

5) Make worship unique and individual: This is probably the hardest component of change for the Church to achieve. I literally want each person to come out of the mass satisfied and uplifted. But, that does not happen to people who simply go to mass like a robot. This is part of the reason I call for the four changes listed above, to make mass a unique experience for each person. In truth, we don't need a Church to be faithful, but we need it to know that there are people like us who worship, have the same questions we do and that we are a part of a larger community. Allow questions of faith, allow new ideas and interpretations, and make it as if the priest is talking to the individual even if he is talking to the whole group. No more robotic motions with people showing up, standing on command and then leaving on command. Faith must become personal and travel with the person even as they exit the Church.

Conclusion: The Catholic Church is struggling. It is trying to redefine itself and correct its errors of both past and present. But, to overshadow, the negative, the Church must renew itself like a phoenix. My suggestions may not be the answer, but I hope they at least enhance the dialogue.

 

Issue 42 My ideal Income tax March 27,2013

Well, my true ideal income tax would be its utter elimination along with the 16th amendment, but alas, that is only a dream at the moment. So here is my ideal income tax that deals with reality.

A true Progressive tax: It is a flat tax. Everyone is taxed at the same rate without exception. You are probably wondering why that is a progressive tax, if everyone is charged the same rate. Well while our current system does tax the so called rich more, it is at a different rate than the rest of the people in different tax brackets. We currently have six different tax rates. The rich under a flat tax would still pay more no matter what.

By switching to a flat tax we gain a significant advantage in reducing the amount of poor people in this country. The current tax code actually helps to keep the people poor as if they go to a higher tax rate, they will actually have less money. An example, say you make $10,000 a year and are taxed at a 10% rate. So you pay $1,000 in taxes. But, if you make $10,001 your tax rate can jump to 16%. So you are now getting a clearer picture as to why the current rate helps to keep the poor.

Basically I want social mobility in the tax code, and a flat tax helps to solve that problem.

No deductions: There can be absolutely no exceptions to the tax. Every single person must have some skin in the game. So, yes, I would tax the poor, but for a good reason. For one, without deductions, or any other loop holes, tax rates will drop dramatically. This also makes it much easier to pay taxes and thus saves the average citizen important personal time raising their kids and taking care of life's problems. As to why the poor should pay. Yes there will be lower rates and thus if they pay taxes it will be easy, but that is not the only reason. If an impoverished person and on welfare, you have no incentive to keep taxes low as you get all the money you may pay in taxes back. As a result, a poor voter can vote for a candidate that will give them all the benefits they want at the cost of everyone else. It becomes a cycle where the country delves into a fiscal mess. Plus welfare will still be there, but it will have to be reformed to ensure that people receiving it have an incentive to get off it. This is the only way the system will work if we keep the welfare apparatus that is in place. Though it is interesting to note Mexico has no welfare system, but not a single person has died as far as I know due to starvation.

Do not tax investments: Investments are not income, they are money (that in bare bones terms) that you lend to a business or group of businesses on the stock market, from which you are rewarded with interest if that business succeeds. More investments equals a better economy is a basic and time held rule governing the economy since the idea of investing was invented. This money put in is already taxed and thus a form of double taxation. We should not have any form of double taxation, not to mention, these investments may be peoples retirement income. I for one do not want the government robbing anyone of their retirement no matter who they are.

Conclusion: Real simple right. One low flat rate that allows everyone to continue getting rich, no matter who they are without penalty, is that not a dream come true. I would make it so that any changes to raise taxes or amend the law will require a super majority vote of about 4/5ths of both houses of Congress (if this idea is done in the U.S.) to insure politics does not ruin the system and harm our nation by giving people a free ride. Though, if I had to choose between my business tax and this one, I would choose the business tax as taxing individuals makes criminals out of people who fail to pay or forget small pieces of documentation. Businesses on the other hand, under my system would find it easier to pay taxes and they pass those costs onto the consumer anyway. If we just had a business tax, then we would not need the IRS to harm our citizens and possibly be used as a weapon by politicians. Not to mention the unreasonable requirement of keeping tax records for 10 years at a time. To me, the logic is simple, get rid of the current tax code, make it simple and fix welfare, then we may not even have to borrow all that money to support our government and its silly spending on shrimp on a treadmill or poetry reading cowboys.

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.