I came to a realization this weekend and it is so overwhelming that I felt I had to share it. When the government is asked to give something to the people, it must raise taxes in order to pay for it. To some of you, this is an obvious statement and you just said, "Well, duh," to me. The rest of you need to take heed. No one wants to pay taxes and we get our politicians to agree to cut our taxes. We then turn around and start yelling that we want special programs to fix some problem, we want lawmen to protect us, teachers to teach us, soldiers to defend us, doctors to heal us, and roads to drive on. These all cost us. Yet, no one wants to pay for them.
We have a deficit, not because our government can't do math, but because we the people refuse to. We the people demand that our government give us all these things and while refusing to allow it to tax us. The fact that our politicians are elected, leads to their desire to give us what we want so they can be re-elected. This leads to a deficit as we demand bigger government oversight and lesser taxes. You can't have both. If we were to take the annual budget and ensure it was fully funded, everyone would have to pay their fair share. For some reason, we the people have decided that those who were either born into money or made their own fortunes should pay for those of us who aren't as well off. Tax the rich has become the mantra we live by. We should be living by the standards of pay equally. If every American paid his or her fair share we could kick this deficit, we just refuse to.
I always felt that it was an obvious statement that you don't buy more than you can afford. It always amazed me when the government continued to pay for things it couldn't afford. Then I took a closer look. I found out that we continued to expand to give more to programs people wanted and then gave them tax breaks because they wanted that as well. And so we ended up where we are today, deep in a hole with only ourselves to blame.
Allow me to make a confession; I am one of those that take advantage of our current tax system. I have been receiving tax refunds for years and have actually been getting more back than I pay into it because of all the breaks and credits I receive. I am at the low end of the middle class with four children and thus get a lot of deductions. In other words, if we were suddenly made to pay our fair share, my tax bill would go up significantly. I am still for paying our fair share. We need these programs. Our teachers, firefighters, policemen, and military need paid. Our roads and infrastructure needs repaired, maintained, and built. There are a ton of programs that we need to continue. Sure, we could work to make them more efficient, and that should definitely be one of our goals, but we still need to pay for them. We need to trim some of the excess, but we still have to pay for the necessary.
We all have the same problem. I call it the gimme syndrome. We all want the government to ”gimme, gimme, gimme," just doesn’t want to pay for it. You don't walk into a grocery store and expect to walk out without paying for your groceries, so why should we expect our government to give us all that it does without paying for it? This is something we all need to remember as we move into this election season. If a politician promises a ton of new programs, reduced taxes, and a reduced budget, you know he/she is lying. It just isn't possible. You can do 2 of the three but the other has to go a direction you probably don't want. New programs and reduced taxes means an increased deficit; reduced deficit and new programs means increased taxes; and reduced taxes and reduced deficit means, not only no new programs, but a reduction in existing programs.
This is something every American needs to understand. We can't end the cycle without understanding the truth of the matter. We can't solve the problems by turning a blind eye and using wishful thinking. We are supposed to be about equality, yet we continually strive to punish those who, using the rules established, have made their fortune. In order for America to be truly equal and to have the same rights, we must stop the inequality in what we pay in taxes. Be honest, what percentage of your income do you actually pay? I don't mean adjusted or what the government says you pay, I mean the money that you get before anything is removed, what percentage of that, do you pay? I am willing to bet that it is less than 10%. Why should we throw a fit when a millionaire pays 15%? Fair isn't fair when we use different standards. That's my two cents.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
The problem with the misnamed Affordable Health Care Act.
Seems that everyone is talking about yesterdays SCOTUS decision on the affordable health care act. Guess that means that I need to weigh in as well. Let's clear something up first. The first thing I need to tell you is that , for the most part, I agree with what is in the act. What I don't agree with is the mandate that everyone have health insurance, the misnaming, and the lack of protection from the insurance companies. These all go hand in hand so I will start with the most basic problem, the name.
This act does nothing to affect the cost of health care. Why do I say this? Firstly, it does nothing to address the issue of health care costs. The bill deals almost exclusively with health insurance and provision of care. In otherwords, who pays for the health care. Either insurance companies, the states, or the federal government. The same as it was before. This has no effect on the cost of health care. At best, the name should be the health insurance reform act.
Now for the meat of the problem, the mandate. The supreme court ruled that there will be a fine for those who don't have health insurance. The first thing you need to realize is when this fine is levied. It isn't on your tax form or by the policeman pulling you over, it is levied when you visit a doctor without health insurance. This means that you still visited the doctor without health insurance and have to pay that bill and now you have an additional fine on top of it. So lets figure out who wouldn't have health insurance.
When it comes to health insurance, There are several categories. There are those that can afford it and pay for it. Those that can afford it, think they are healthy enough not to need it and thus don't buy it (a minority). Those that can't afford it and qualify for state or federal health care (Va, Medicare, etc.) and are on it. Then there is the last 2 categories. These two are the ones hurt most by this bill. The first category is those that can't afford health insurance but aren't poor enough to get government health care. Then there are those that have been denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Let's talk about those with pre-existing conditions and how this bill does nothing to help them. While it is true that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage to someone with preexisting conditions, there is no provision to make that affordable. We are talking about private comanies here. They exist to make money, not to care for people. Everything they do needs to be profitable. They aren't going to offer insurance at reasonable rates for everyone if it affects their bottom line. Here is what I see happening. A person with a pre-existing condition applies for health insurance and the company, because they have to offer insurance, quotes them an annual rate that will cover their costs and then some (for profit, remember). Now, the applicant can't afford the coverage and thus declines it. The insurance company complied with the law and offered to cover you, you chose to decline it adn thus it is your fault you aren't insured. Nowhere in this law is that prevented.
As for those who couldn't afford health insurance already, once again, there is no provision to make it affordable or get them on government programs. All we've done is make criminals out of people who are just trying to survive and increase the profits of a bunch of health insurance companies.
The idea that your health insurance will go down as a result of this law is highly laughable. The reason is simple. These companies are making huge profits on those who are already paying, they aren't going to jeopardize them for this law. They will make up the costs in whatever way they can. This means by raising rates for those of us that are healthy should their lawyers advise them to insure the previously uninsurable. What motivation do they have to lower rates? To be nice? They're trying to make profits. If they can increase rates to increase profits they will. At some point someone is going to mention auto insurance, so I will address that right now. Yes, there are a ton of auto inurance companies out there and they all claim to save money. The fact is, auto insurance rates have gone up signaificantly over the years at a rate higher than inflation. But yours has gone down? Has your driving record improved? Did you get older? If you compare apples to apples, auto insurance has gone up, not down. Sure people are always saving according to the commercials, but what they don't tell you is that people don't switch unless they are going to save money or their insurance dropped them (in which case, they usually don't save money). The reason these people save money is because, for the most part, they haven't reviewed there policy in years and were getting charged at the rate they started in which didn't reflect there current status (good driving, accident free, getting older, etc.). Health insurance will be no different. Why should it be? They both are working for profit.
Now for the solution. In order to make health care affordable, there has to be a baseline alternative. Something everyone can afford and sets a bar that the health insurance companies need to meet. The only way to do this is through a government offered insurance plan. The way that would work of there is an allowable deduction for health care. If you take the deduction, you are saying you have purchased health insurance from a private company. If you opt to not take the deduction, you are enrolled in the government health insurance which is a basic insurance (regular preventative medicine, emergency care, etc.) for one year (your next tax return). Then, if you go to the doctor and you don't have health insurance, instead of a fine, you get and IRS audit, are investigated for tax fraud/evasion, and face jail time. This would increase tax revenues, make health insurance affordable for all, and allow freedom of choice of providers.
Let's go back to the point I made about the unisured visiting hte hospital. Under this bill, a fine is levied if you visit a doctor, for any reason, without insurance. Those that are currently visiting doctors wihtout insurance usually do so via the emergency room. This wouldn't change. Those without insurance would visit the ER and then have a fine to pay ontop of an ER bill. As I mentioned before, the primary group that does not have insurance are those that can't afford it. If they can't afford health insurance, what makes the politicians think they will pay for an ER visit and a fine. They would already ignore the bill from the ER so what is ignoring a fine. Health care costs stay the same and insurance goes up. We all lose.
This is my opinion and I take responsability for it. If you can dispute any of this, I welcome it. I love being proven wrong. OK, I don't love it, I do accept it though and learn from it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
This act does nothing to affect the cost of health care. Why do I say this? Firstly, it does nothing to address the issue of health care costs. The bill deals almost exclusively with health insurance and provision of care. In otherwords, who pays for the health care. Either insurance companies, the states, or the federal government. The same as it was before. This has no effect on the cost of health care. At best, the name should be the health insurance reform act.
Now for the meat of the problem, the mandate. The supreme court ruled that there will be a fine for those who don't have health insurance. The first thing you need to realize is when this fine is levied. It isn't on your tax form or by the policeman pulling you over, it is levied when you visit a doctor without health insurance. This means that you still visited the doctor without health insurance and have to pay that bill and now you have an additional fine on top of it. So lets figure out who wouldn't have health insurance.
When it comes to health insurance, There are several categories. There are those that can afford it and pay for it. Those that can afford it, think they are healthy enough not to need it and thus don't buy it (a minority). Those that can't afford it and qualify for state or federal health care (Va, Medicare, etc.) and are on it. Then there is the last 2 categories. These two are the ones hurt most by this bill. The first category is those that can't afford health insurance but aren't poor enough to get government health care. Then there are those that have been denied health insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Let's talk about those with pre-existing conditions and how this bill does nothing to help them. While it is true that health insurance companies cannot deny coverage to someone with preexisting conditions, there is no provision to make that affordable. We are talking about private comanies here. They exist to make money, not to care for people. Everything they do needs to be profitable. They aren't going to offer insurance at reasonable rates for everyone if it affects their bottom line. Here is what I see happening. A person with a pre-existing condition applies for health insurance and the company, because they have to offer insurance, quotes them an annual rate that will cover their costs and then some (for profit, remember). Now, the applicant can't afford the coverage and thus declines it. The insurance company complied with the law and offered to cover you, you chose to decline it adn thus it is your fault you aren't insured. Nowhere in this law is that prevented.
As for those who couldn't afford health insurance already, once again, there is no provision to make it affordable or get them on government programs. All we've done is make criminals out of people who are just trying to survive and increase the profits of a bunch of health insurance companies.
The idea that your health insurance will go down as a result of this law is highly laughable. The reason is simple. These companies are making huge profits on those who are already paying, they aren't going to jeopardize them for this law. They will make up the costs in whatever way they can. This means by raising rates for those of us that are healthy should their lawyers advise them to insure the previously uninsurable. What motivation do they have to lower rates? To be nice? They're trying to make profits. If they can increase rates to increase profits they will. At some point someone is going to mention auto insurance, so I will address that right now. Yes, there are a ton of auto inurance companies out there and they all claim to save money. The fact is, auto insurance rates have gone up signaificantly over the years at a rate higher than inflation. But yours has gone down? Has your driving record improved? Did you get older? If you compare apples to apples, auto insurance has gone up, not down. Sure people are always saving according to the commercials, but what they don't tell you is that people don't switch unless they are going to save money or their insurance dropped them (in which case, they usually don't save money). The reason these people save money is because, for the most part, they haven't reviewed there policy in years and were getting charged at the rate they started in which didn't reflect there current status (good driving, accident free, getting older, etc.). Health insurance will be no different. Why should it be? They both are working for profit.
Now for the solution. In order to make health care affordable, there has to be a baseline alternative. Something everyone can afford and sets a bar that the health insurance companies need to meet. The only way to do this is through a government offered insurance plan. The way that would work of there is an allowable deduction for health care. If you take the deduction, you are saying you have purchased health insurance from a private company. If you opt to not take the deduction, you are enrolled in the government health insurance which is a basic insurance (regular preventative medicine, emergency care, etc.) for one year (your next tax return). Then, if you go to the doctor and you don't have health insurance, instead of a fine, you get and IRS audit, are investigated for tax fraud/evasion, and face jail time. This would increase tax revenues, make health insurance affordable for all, and allow freedom of choice of providers.
Let's go back to the point I made about the unisured visiting hte hospital. Under this bill, a fine is levied if you visit a doctor, for any reason, without insurance. Those that are currently visiting doctors wihtout insurance usually do so via the emergency room. This wouldn't change. Those without insurance would visit the ER and then have a fine to pay ontop of an ER bill. As I mentioned before, the primary group that does not have insurance are those that can't afford it. If they can't afford health insurance, what makes the politicians think they will pay for an ER visit and a fine. They would already ignore the bill from the ER so what is ignoring a fine. Health care costs stay the same and insurance goes up. We all lose.
This is my opinion and I take responsability for it. If you can dispute any of this, I welcome it. I love being proven wrong. OK, I don't love it, I do accept it though and learn from it.
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
The pay gap that isn't
As you may have noticed, I haven't posted in a couple days. There is one good reason and one bad reason for this. The bad reason is that, on Tuesday, I didn't feel like it. It wasn't anything in particular, I just didn't have anything constructive to say so I chose not to post. In retrospect I should have posted another answer that I gave my sons as I have done in the past, but I failed. The good reason is that, yesterday, the guys came to put in my septic tank so I was involved in that all day. Which turned out to be a bit of a waste as the only thing they got done was removing my old oil tank. That was a bit angering, We replaced the tank based on information that it was leaking because sediment was found in the oil filter during servicing. When the tank was pulled, it looked good. In fact, it still had oil in it and didn't leak. talk about a bummer. Oh well, one less thing to mow around.
Now for today's post. There is a piece of legislation going around that the Democrats would have us believe is part of the Republican's war on women. You may have heard of it, it is the pay equality act, or something similar. It is supposed to ensure women get equal pay. This is a piece of useless legislation at best and downright political maneuvering in any other case. Why? First off, let's get the idea that I am against equal pay for women out of the way. I am not. I have always been a big supporter of equal pay for equal work. It is right and what is fair and I won't deny it.
Now on to why this is a piece of legislation that makes no sense. I would like someone to show me a job that women get paid less for doing the same work as their male counter parts. I couldn't find one. I found stats showing that over all women got paid less than men, on average, across the US, including all jobs. But when you delve into it the average used is done wrong. First off it includes all jobs including ones that are typically avoided by women, such as construction, deep sea fishing, window cleaning (I am kidding there), and other high risk jobs. I am not saying that women don't or can't do them, I am saying they are typically avoided by women. Secondly, the average does not take into account for longevity. This is a major factor in a lot of jobs. For instance, until recently, the majority of CEO's were men. This wasn't because of sexism as feminists would have you believe, but because the position of CEO is typically filled by someone that has a track record of efficient leadership. This can only be achieved through experience and time. In other words, in order for there to be women as CEO's there have to have been women as VP's and on down the line. Of course there is going to be a disparity here since men have been in the work place longer. Factor in the fact that a lot of women leave the work place to have a family and that those that stay are outnumbered as they move up the ladder and you can see why this may be.
Now for the real shocker. For the most part (professional sports excluded), women get paid as much, or more than their male counter parts. This is from data that compares job to job. It took an average of all men and women working in the same area in the same jobs during the same time frames. Which makes sense as it is comparing the same things. Think about it, if you compared your end of year totals with your coworker and you worked twice as many hours as he did, would you consider it fair if your boss paid him the same amount based on pay equality? Or what if you went in to work one day and found that the new intern was getting the same pay as you, even though you were a manager, because there is a pay gap. This is what the act to fix the purported pay gap is trying to do.
Overall, it was a piece of legislation that served no purpose, wasted time and money, and was strictly to give the appearance that Republicans hate women. Oh, did I mention that the bill required added funding in a time when we are trying to make budget cuts? So the Republicans voted against wasting tax payer money on a bill that served no purpose and they are being castigated for it. Makes sense to me (please note that the last statement was made with the highest level of sarcasm possible).
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Now for today's post. There is a piece of legislation going around that the Democrats would have us believe is part of the Republican's war on women. You may have heard of it, it is the pay equality act, or something similar. It is supposed to ensure women get equal pay. This is a piece of useless legislation at best and downright political maneuvering in any other case. Why? First off, let's get the idea that I am against equal pay for women out of the way. I am not. I have always been a big supporter of equal pay for equal work. It is right and what is fair and I won't deny it.
Now on to why this is a piece of legislation that makes no sense. I would like someone to show me a job that women get paid less for doing the same work as their male counter parts. I couldn't find one. I found stats showing that over all women got paid less than men, on average, across the US, including all jobs. But when you delve into it the average used is done wrong. First off it includes all jobs including ones that are typically avoided by women, such as construction, deep sea fishing, window cleaning (I am kidding there), and other high risk jobs. I am not saying that women don't or can't do them, I am saying they are typically avoided by women. Secondly, the average does not take into account for longevity. This is a major factor in a lot of jobs. For instance, until recently, the majority of CEO's were men. This wasn't because of sexism as feminists would have you believe, but because the position of CEO is typically filled by someone that has a track record of efficient leadership. This can only be achieved through experience and time. In other words, in order for there to be women as CEO's there have to have been women as VP's and on down the line. Of course there is going to be a disparity here since men have been in the work place longer. Factor in the fact that a lot of women leave the work place to have a family and that those that stay are outnumbered as they move up the ladder and you can see why this may be.
Now for the real shocker. For the most part (professional sports excluded), women get paid as much, or more than their male counter parts. This is from data that compares job to job. It took an average of all men and women working in the same area in the same jobs during the same time frames. Which makes sense as it is comparing the same things. Think about it, if you compared your end of year totals with your coworker and you worked twice as many hours as he did, would you consider it fair if your boss paid him the same amount based on pay equality? Or what if you went in to work one day and found that the new intern was getting the same pay as you, even though you were a manager, because there is a pay gap. This is what the act to fix the purported pay gap is trying to do.
Overall, it was a piece of legislation that served no purpose, wasted time and money, and was strictly to give the appearance that Republicans hate women. Oh, did I mention that the bill required added funding in a time when we are trying to make budget cuts? So the Republicans voted against wasting tax payer money on a bill that served no purpose and they are being castigated for it. Makes sense to me (please note that the last statement was made with the highest level of sarcasm possible).
Thanks for reading and, as always, have a great day.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Manic Monday: Occupy Wall Street: You got the wrong address.
First off, I would like to apologize for not posting last week. I was busy and decided to put the blog on the bottom of the list. After a week off, I feel as though I was missing something so I am back.
Today is Monday, which means, Manic Monday! Today, I think I will tackle this Occupy Wall Street thing. After reading what it's about and what the protesters are saying, I find myself of two minds. On the one hand I sort of agree with what they are saying, but on the other, I find it to be overridden by angst against our system. Allow me to explain.
The parts I agree with are the some of the base points. The first being that the majority of Americans have the minority voice in our government. Our Government tends to listen to the biggest donors (this is done by both Democrats and Republicans), which are not the majority. How many middle class families can afford $1,500 a plate fundraising dinners? The Democrats like to point out that the republicans are the most vocal for these businesses, but you have to ask yourself, are the Democrats really against them? They had 2 years in which to raise taxes on them and they waited for the inevitable swing to blame it on the Republicans. I agree that we should raise the taxes (or at least remove the deductions they use to not pay taxes) on the rich.
The second thing I agree with is the underlying message we are feeding our kids these days. The one that says you have to go to college to get a job. Years ago, college was what you used to make yourself stand out. You got your degree in the field you were going to work in and you worked in that field. You followed it all the way and became as close to an expert in the field you wanted to work in as you could, then you worked in it. Now, we are told to, "just get a degree." Really, what in? It doesn't matter, the employers "just want to see that you are capable of learning." I looked it up (it was quoted to me so I had to), less than 30% of college grads are working in the field in which they got their degree. Granted, Lawyers don't necessarily have to have a pre-law degree to go to law school, so they aren't technically working in the field they got their degree in, but it is still a statistic that I find disgusting. Especially when you add on the fact that the average college grad owes $30,000 in student loans. Couple that with a tight market and you start your career in debt and behind. Not a recipe for success. Let's be realistic, we don't need a degree to be work in a mail room or as a receptionist. These two positions were the starting points of many a millionaires careers. The other side of this is that these college grads are led to believe that their degrees rate a higher starting pay. The sad truth is that this is false. When you have 20 people vying for the same job, the person who will do it most economically (cheaply and good enough), gets it. The guy that tells the hirer that he will do it for whatever and has the ability, will get it over the guy with the degree that demands a higher salary. That's just econ 101.
Now for the tough part. I disagree with the Occupy Wall Street movement on a couple of issues. The first being the ire directed at inequality in pay. Yes, there is inequality in pay. This happens in a society such as we have. The rich must be taxed. If you tax their income, they will keep it in the company as much as possible. If you tax the company profits, the company will put the money into expanding the company and thus create more jobs. Simple economics. Yes, this is contrary to what the republicans preach, but it is the truth. This means the problem isn't with the CEO's or the wealthy, it's with our government. The Idea that all pay should be equal, or close to it, is a communist ideal. To protest that corporations should share their wealth, is ludicrous. You have to reward innovation and business sense. Failure to do so, will lead to loss of business and thus loss of jobs. Allow the rich to amass wealth, but at the same time, tax them in such a way as to aid the nation. The difficult part is finding the balance. We have to find a balance where we tax the wealthy enough that they find it better to reinvest in society, but not so much that they leave altogether. The same with businesses.
The second thing I disagree with is where it is located. As you can tell from my comments above, this should be a Occupy Washington movement. Camp out on the capital's steps, in front of the White House, and at the congressional offices. The CEO's are laughing at you because you are ineffectual in your actions. Move to Washington, and they may start quaking in their boots. Right now, the CEO's are finding your actions laughable because, while you may inconvenience them a little bit, they are still raking in the cash. While you may draw attention to yourselves, you are not inconveniencing anyone who can be swayed by your stance. True, the media is following you, but you are railing at the CEO's to change. True, some elected officials are listening and commenting, but they aren't afraid because you haven't targeted them. Move you your protest to Washington and start naming who is donating to who. Start pointing out the money and what needs to be done, not just in Washington, but in their home states. You can affect the elected officials' jobs with your protest by pointing out how they are stopping the necessary change. You can't do that by protesting the guys who worked their way up to the top and managed a company that made money. they just aren't going to listen because you can't affect their pay.
That's all I have for today. I know some of what I said is controversial, I just ask that you be respectful in how you respond. Thank you.
Today is Monday, which means, Manic Monday! Today, I think I will tackle this Occupy Wall Street thing. After reading what it's about and what the protesters are saying, I find myself of two minds. On the one hand I sort of agree with what they are saying, but on the other, I find it to be overridden by angst against our system. Allow me to explain.
The parts I agree with are the some of the base points. The first being that the majority of Americans have the minority voice in our government. Our Government tends to listen to the biggest donors (this is done by both Democrats and Republicans), which are not the majority. How many middle class families can afford $1,500 a plate fundraising dinners? The Democrats like to point out that the republicans are the most vocal for these businesses, but you have to ask yourself, are the Democrats really against them? They had 2 years in which to raise taxes on them and they waited for the inevitable swing to blame it on the Republicans. I agree that we should raise the taxes (or at least remove the deductions they use to not pay taxes) on the rich.
The second thing I agree with is the underlying message we are feeding our kids these days. The one that says you have to go to college to get a job. Years ago, college was what you used to make yourself stand out. You got your degree in the field you were going to work in and you worked in that field. You followed it all the way and became as close to an expert in the field you wanted to work in as you could, then you worked in it. Now, we are told to, "just get a degree." Really, what in? It doesn't matter, the employers "just want to see that you are capable of learning." I looked it up (it was quoted to me so I had to), less than 30% of college grads are working in the field in which they got their degree. Granted, Lawyers don't necessarily have to have a pre-law degree to go to law school, so they aren't technically working in the field they got their degree in, but it is still a statistic that I find disgusting. Especially when you add on the fact that the average college grad owes $30,000 in student loans. Couple that with a tight market and you start your career in debt and behind. Not a recipe for success. Let's be realistic, we don't need a degree to be work in a mail room or as a receptionist. These two positions were the starting points of many a millionaires careers. The other side of this is that these college grads are led to believe that their degrees rate a higher starting pay. The sad truth is that this is false. When you have 20 people vying for the same job, the person who will do it most economically (cheaply and good enough), gets it. The guy that tells the hirer that he will do it for whatever and has the ability, will get it over the guy with the degree that demands a higher salary. That's just econ 101.
Now for the tough part. I disagree with the Occupy Wall Street movement on a couple of issues. The first being the ire directed at inequality in pay. Yes, there is inequality in pay. This happens in a society such as we have. The rich must be taxed. If you tax their income, they will keep it in the company as much as possible. If you tax the company profits, the company will put the money into expanding the company and thus create more jobs. Simple economics. Yes, this is contrary to what the republicans preach, but it is the truth. This means the problem isn't with the CEO's or the wealthy, it's with our government. The Idea that all pay should be equal, or close to it, is a communist ideal. To protest that corporations should share their wealth, is ludicrous. You have to reward innovation and business sense. Failure to do so, will lead to loss of business and thus loss of jobs. Allow the rich to amass wealth, but at the same time, tax them in such a way as to aid the nation. The difficult part is finding the balance. We have to find a balance where we tax the wealthy enough that they find it better to reinvest in society, but not so much that they leave altogether. The same with businesses.
The second thing I disagree with is where it is located. As you can tell from my comments above, this should be a Occupy Washington movement. Camp out on the capital's steps, in front of the White House, and at the congressional offices. The CEO's are laughing at you because you are ineffectual in your actions. Move to Washington, and they may start quaking in their boots. Right now, the CEO's are finding your actions laughable because, while you may inconvenience them a little bit, they are still raking in the cash. While you may draw attention to yourselves, you are not inconveniencing anyone who can be swayed by your stance. True, the media is following you, but you are railing at the CEO's to change. True, some elected officials are listening and commenting, but they aren't afraid because you haven't targeted them. Move you your protest to Washington and start naming who is donating to who. Start pointing out the money and what needs to be done, not just in Washington, but in their home states. You can affect the elected officials' jobs with your protest by pointing out how they are stopping the necessary change. You can't do that by protesting the guys who worked their way up to the top and managed a company that made money. they just aren't going to listen because you can't affect their pay.
That's all I have for today. I know some of what I said is controversial, I just ask that you be respectful in how you respond. Thank you.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Manic Monday: Cut the budget somewhere else.
It is Manic Monday. Today's subject, the national budget. Recently a friend pointed out that the first thing the government seeks to cut is the defense budget. I wonder why. The fact is that the defense budget is less than a quarter of the entire national budget. This means that three quarters of the budget is considered secondary when it comes to cuts. The pentagon was instructed to cut 600 billion from its budget. If all of the rest of government were to cut the same amount, it would amount to 2.4 trillion dollars in savings. Yet, it is only the defense budget that is facing these type of cuts. Now, add in the fact that, of all the programs on the budget, only Defense is named specifically in the constitution. I know that some of the other expenditures are implied, but only defense is actually named.
So, why is defense always targeted? Because for years it was viewed as a black hole for our money. We would drop in millions and what did we get out? Some new weapons, maybe a new building. Then there were the rumors of thousand dollar hammers and million dollar toilet seats. While these may be exaggerations, there is some truth to the premise. The military does end up paying more for what they buy, than the average Joe would for the same items. Why? Because of the acquisition rules set for us by congress. Because every congressman wants the big government contract for his constituents. The fact is that we are overcharged because the businesses can. Let's take a look at a simple valve. That part may cost $20 at Lowe's. But the government will end up paying $30 for the valve and here is why. That mom and pop business competing with Lowe's begins with an advantage. They get to deduct 10% from what they charge because they are a small business. Next, they get to deduct another 10% because they are woman owned. Then another 10% because that woman is a veteran. Then another 10% because she is a minority. After all of these deductions, the small business can charge $30 and their bid shows up as $19.70, which is obviously less than $20 and thus wins the contract. This is a small example. There are hundreds more like it and it adds up. As I said, these rules were set by congress and are known throughout the contracting world. Thus, if a company wants to win a government contract, they split off a division that makes a specific item the government wants and ensures that it is small enough to be classified as a small business. They list a minority, veteran, woman with a disability as the owner and now she charges 1.5 times what her competitors charge and wins the contract. This drives up what we have to pay for defense.
That being said. I wouldn't have a problem cutting the defense budget if we also got rid of these rules so that we didn't have to pay twice as much for items as they would cost a guy in the street. The problem is, because of these rules, we have to pay the extra to just maintain our military. This means, the cuts we are now looking to make must come from the personnel budget. That's right, we are looking at ways to take away what those of us who have served our country have earned. They are going to start charging us more for the health care we were promised would be free if we served for 20 years. We are being told that the next generation will no longer receive a retirement they earned for 20 years of service. Instead they will be given half of what is now considered small and they have to wait until they are 67 to get it. How is this right? We have a welfare system that is broke. A government that is dysfunctional at best. Yet, our military, which is considered the finest in the world (and by the way is one of the very few all volunteer force), is the first to get the axe. Apparently, what works must be destroyed so that that which doesn't appears better.
Am I a bit disappointed? Yes. Am I bit angered? Who wouldn't be? The reality is that those who don't serve or have never served, look at the military as a huge drain. They don't see the need for it. there is a need. The role of our military is to protect our nation and its interests. We do this by providing a military force within our boundaries. We do this by taking the fight to those who would bring it to us. We do this by protecting those who would be our allies. We do this by ensuring we leave a place better than when we got there. Some say the military is not protecting our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. I beg to differ. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11. Deny it all you want, but we went in with almost 100% support. Iraq, although not as obvious, was a threat to us and the region. Saddam Hussein continually threatened those around him and pushed us. For 8 years under Clinton, he would regularly flaunt our indecision by first denying access for inspectors then allowing them just as we were about to take action. Did we use a bad excuse? Maybe. We don't have the briefing papers the president had when he authorized it. It doesn't watter now though. Remember that last thing I said we did? The one about leaving a place better than we found it. This means we are responsible to help establish a government that can function and give its people the freedoms that we enjoy. This means we can't just leave a defeated nation to fend for itself. Especially a nation that was a breeding ground for terrorists. If we had just left them, the Afghan and Iraqi people would have been saddled with a country with no government, no infrastructure, and no help to rebuild. By staying and helping them set this up, we are helping to maintain and build stability in an unstable region. This is what we do. To do any less would be un-American.
Now that I have ranted and raved about what I believe on this. It is your turn. Tell me where I am wrong. Let me know what I have said that has upset you. I look forward to any discussion on this topic you wish to have. I think its time we look at the other three fourths of the national budget for our savings. But maybe I am mistaken.
Thank you for your time. Have a wonderful day.
So, why is defense always targeted? Because for years it was viewed as a black hole for our money. We would drop in millions and what did we get out? Some new weapons, maybe a new building. Then there were the rumors of thousand dollar hammers and million dollar toilet seats. While these may be exaggerations, there is some truth to the premise. The military does end up paying more for what they buy, than the average Joe would for the same items. Why? Because of the acquisition rules set for us by congress. Because every congressman wants the big government contract for his constituents. The fact is that we are overcharged because the businesses can. Let's take a look at a simple valve. That part may cost $20 at Lowe's. But the government will end up paying $30 for the valve and here is why. That mom and pop business competing with Lowe's begins with an advantage. They get to deduct 10% from what they charge because they are a small business. Next, they get to deduct another 10% because they are woman owned. Then another 10% because that woman is a veteran. Then another 10% because she is a minority. After all of these deductions, the small business can charge $30 and their bid shows up as $19.70, which is obviously less than $20 and thus wins the contract. This is a small example. There are hundreds more like it and it adds up. As I said, these rules were set by congress and are known throughout the contracting world. Thus, if a company wants to win a government contract, they split off a division that makes a specific item the government wants and ensures that it is small enough to be classified as a small business. They list a minority, veteran, woman with a disability as the owner and now she charges 1.5 times what her competitors charge and wins the contract. This drives up what we have to pay for defense.
That being said. I wouldn't have a problem cutting the defense budget if we also got rid of these rules so that we didn't have to pay twice as much for items as they would cost a guy in the street. The problem is, because of these rules, we have to pay the extra to just maintain our military. This means, the cuts we are now looking to make must come from the personnel budget. That's right, we are looking at ways to take away what those of us who have served our country have earned. They are going to start charging us more for the health care we were promised would be free if we served for 20 years. We are being told that the next generation will no longer receive a retirement they earned for 20 years of service. Instead they will be given half of what is now considered small and they have to wait until they are 67 to get it. How is this right? We have a welfare system that is broke. A government that is dysfunctional at best. Yet, our military, which is considered the finest in the world (and by the way is one of the very few all volunteer force), is the first to get the axe. Apparently, what works must be destroyed so that that which doesn't appears better.
Am I a bit disappointed? Yes. Am I bit angered? Who wouldn't be? The reality is that those who don't serve or have never served, look at the military as a huge drain. They don't see the need for it. there is a need. The role of our military is to protect our nation and its interests. We do this by providing a military force within our boundaries. We do this by taking the fight to those who would bring it to us. We do this by protecting those who would be our allies. We do this by ensuring we leave a place better than when we got there. Some say the military is not protecting our interests in Iraq and Afghanistan. I beg to differ. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11. Deny it all you want, but we went in with almost 100% support. Iraq, although not as obvious, was a threat to us and the region. Saddam Hussein continually threatened those around him and pushed us. For 8 years under Clinton, he would regularly flaunt our indecision by first denying access for inspectors then allowing them just as we were about to take action. Did we use a bad excuse? Maybe. We don't have the briefing papers the president had when he authorized it. It doesn't watter now though. Remember that last thing I said we did? The one about leaving a place better than we found it. This means we are responsible to help establish a government that can function and give its people the freedoms that we enjoy. This means we can't just leave a defeated nation to fend for itself. Especially a nation that was a breeding ground for terrorists. If we had just left them, the Afghan and Iraqi people would have been saddled with a country with no government, no infrastructure, and no help to rebuild. By staying and helping them set this up, we are helping to maintain and build stability in an unstable region. This is what we do. To do any less would be un-American.
Now that I have ranted and raved about what I believe on this. It is your turn. Tell me where I am wrong. Let me know what I have said that has upset you. I look forward to any discussion on this topic you wish to have. I think its time we look at the other three fourths of the national budget for our savings. But maybe I am mistaken.
Thank you for your time. Have a wonderful day.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Manic Monday: National Debt = National Disaster
To start off today's post, I would like to give a shout out to my brother in law, Joe. Thanks for coming and spending time with us. It was truly wonderful and we had a great time. Next up, the news. A week from Wednesday, our house goes on the market. This means my wife and I will be busy cleaning house for the interim as we try to make it presentable. This also means we need a ton of boxes. Which means I need to find them. It is what it is. I am not looking forward to this. So much work.
Now for the part you've been waiting for (either with dread or hope, I am not sure which I find more frightening), Manic Monday. Today's topic: The Debt limit and the politics around it. Let me start with a quote from a bumper sticker. "Truth isn't always popular, but it is always Right." How could it be any more simple than that. Let's look at the current situation and find the truth in it. Truth: 40% of every dollar the US government currently spends is borrowed. Truth: You can't pay reduce a debt unless you spend less than you make. Truth: You can't reduce your income when you spend more than you currently make. These should be obvious, yet for some reason, the people WE voted for don't understand this. For fear of insulting their constituents they make it easier to get on government funded programs. They add on other programs and increase the area of responsibility. They haven't "created" new programs, just enlarged current ones.
Then they cut taxes (read income). So they didn't really cut taxes, they just refuse to repeal previous tax cuts. Do I want to pay more in taxes? Not really, but the question should really be, will I pay higher taxes now for reduced taxes later. The answer to that will be yes.
The final nail in the coffin in this debate is the fact that, while they are talking cuts, they are meaningless if they don't remove earmarks and special interests. The fact is that government needs to become more efficient. We need to remove waste and have a directed approach.
I have always said, don't complain about a problem unless you can present a solution along with it (I wasn't the originator of this, but I can't remember where I heard it). That being said, here goes. Please note that these are long term solutions and it may take a few years for the effects to be seen and the results to match. The first thing that needs to be done is to increase revenue. Until the debt is paid, we have to increase taxes. This isn't a hope, or a want it is a must. The simplest way to do this is to revert to remove deductions and credits. No matter what you do, people will be angry, but it must be done. We all need to pay. I am not a tax lawyer so I don't know the exact sections to repeal, but I think the best way is to start at a flat 20% tax across the board. We can reduce later when the debt is paid. As for those whose income is such that paying 20% taxes would reduce them below the poverty level, they would be exempt (after all, if we put them into poverty, that would be that much more spending the government would have). As for businesses, they are taxed for 20% of their profits. Thus, they can avoid taxes by expanding the business thus creating jobs, thus reducing unemployment and increasing tax revenues. Obviously, we have to define legitimate business expenditures (a company jet would not be one) so that buying a house for the CEO from business funds is not counted as a business expenditure and thus no taxes paid on that money. Now that we have raised revenue by putting more people to work and actually taxing income, we can move on to reducing spending.
The second part of this, spending reduction, now comes into play. First off, we partially solved it by reducing the number of people on unemployment and welfare by increasing jobs. Now we need to look at other areas. First off, welfare. I have never liked it, but I recognize that there is a legitimate need. The biggest problem I have with welfare is the fact that it makes it easy for people to stay impoverished and becomes a way of life. Welfare should be a stepping stone, not a living. Start with drug testing of those on welfare. If you fail a drug test, you are placed in government funded rehab (yes, I know, one more expenditure, but hear me out), this way when you are sober, you may find a better way to make a living and no longer need welfare. If you fail a second drug test after you complete rehab, you lose welfare. If you are on welfare and you have children, you will only get one welfare increase. This is for the first child, after that, if you can't provide for them, the government will take them and place them into the foster care system until you can (having children as a means of increasing pay only compounds the problem, it doesn't gain anything). Studies have shown that only a small percentage of people born into a poor family rise above the level at which they were raised. In fact, from what I have found, most people raised on welfare end up on welfare themselves.
Another way to reduce spending (and maybe even raise revenue) is to put our criminals to work. At one time, the US prison system actually made money after paying for itself. Now we are paying around $30,000 per inmate to house them. They are criminals, they had their day in court and were found guilty. Make them earn their keep. If we made them just tend the fields where their vegetables came from, they would save the tax payer thousands.
Another place we could save money from is by giving incentives to various agencies to become more efficient. Instead of saying that if they don't use all their funding this year they won't get it next year, tell them that funding won't decrease and that it will increase by a percentage of what was saved. The current system merely punishes underspending. Overspend and you get berated, but you get your extra funding (it wouldn't be right not to pay your people). Underspend and you get you funding cut. This is fundamentally wrong. We should reward people for doing good things with our money.
Will we see results from all of the above this year? Not even close, I would estimate that it would take a decade for the debt to finally be paid if all the above was done (and I am no expert), but it is a start. The biggest problem with all of this is that, for some inexplicable reason, once the politicians get to Washington, DC, everything they ever learned finances goes right out the window. If any house in America operated like the US government, they would be bankrupt at the least. I can't imagine a bank saying OK if someone were to try and borrow more if they already were spending more than they made and had to borrow to pay their bills. It just doesn't happen. In reality, we have to live within our means. Raise taxes, reduce spending and pay our debts now. Then we can reduce our taxes later and decide if we really need to increase spending at that time. That's just my opinion, maybe you have a better solution. No matter how you look at it, something needs done. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Now for the part you've been waiting for (either with dread or hope, I am not sure which I find more frightening), Manic Monday. Today's topic: The Debt limit and the politics around it. Let me start with a quote from a bumper sticker. "Truth isn't always popular, but it is always Right." How could it be any more simple than that. Let's look at the current situation and find the truth in it. Truth: 40% of every dollar the US government currently spends is borrowed. Truth: You can't pay reduce a debt unless you spend less than you make. Truth: You can't reduce your income when you spend more than you currently make. These should be obvious, yet for some reason, the people WE voted for don't understand this. For fear of insulting their constituents they make it easier to get on government funded programs. They add on other programs and increase the area of responsibility. They haven't "created" new programs, just enlarged current ones.
Then they cut taxes (read income). So they didn't really cut taxes, they just refuse to repeal previous tax cuts. Do I want to pay more in taxes? Not really, but the question should really be, will I pay higher taxes now for reduced taxes later. The answer to that will be yes.
The final nail in the coffin in this debate is the fact that, while they are talking cuts, they are meaningless if they don't remove earmarks and special interests. The fact is that government needs to become more efficient. We need to remove waste and have a directed approach.
I have always said, don't complain about a problem unless you can present a solution along with it (I wasn't the originator of this, but I can't remember where I heard it). That being said, here goes. Please note that these are long term solutions and it may take a few years for the effects to be seen and the results to match. The first thing that needs to be done is to increase revenue. Until the debt is paid, we have to increase taxes. This isn't a hope, or a want it is a must. The simplest way to do this is to revert to remove deductions and credits. No matter what you do, people will be angry, but it must be done. We all need to pay. I am not a tax lawyer so I don't know the exact sections to repeal, but I think the best way is to start at a flat 20% tax across the board. We can reduce later when the debt is paid. As for those whose income is such that paying 20% taxes would reduce them below the poverty level, they would be exempt (after all, if we put them into poverty, that would be that much more spending the government would have). As for businesses, they are taxed for 20% of their profits. Thus, they can avoid taxes by expanding the business thus creating jobs, thus reducing unemployment and increasing tax revenues. Obviously, we have to define legitimate business expenditures (a company jet would not be one) so that buying a house for the CEO from business funds is not counted as a business expenditure and thus no taxes paid on that money. Now that we have raised revenue by putting more people to work and actually taxing income, we can move on to reducing spending.
The second part of this, spending reduction, now comes into play. First off, we partially solved it by reducing the number of people on unemployment and welfare by increasing jobs. Now we need to look at other areas. First off, welfare. I have never liked it, but I recognize that there is a legitimate need. The biggest problem I have with welfare is the fact that it makes it easy for people to stay impoverished and becomes a way of life. Welfare should be a stepping stone, not a living. Start with drug testing of those on welfare. If you fail a drug test, you are placed in government funded rehab (yes, I know, one more expenditure, but hear me out), this way when you are sober, you may find a better way to make a living and no longer need welfare. If you fail a second drug test after you complete rehab, you lose welfare. If you are on welfare and you have children, you will only get one welfare increase. This is for the first child, after that, if you can't provide for them, the government will take them and place them into the foster care system until you can (having children as a means of increasing pay only compounds the problem, it doesn't gain anything). Studies have shown that only a small percentage of people born into a poor family rise above the level at which they were raised. In fact, from what I have found, most people raised on welfare end up on welfare themselves.
Another way to reduce spending (and maybe even raise revenue) is to put our criminals to work. At one time, the US prison system actually made money after paying for itself. Now we are paying around $30,000 per inmate to house them. They are criminals, they had their day in court and were found guilty. Make them earn their keep. If we made them just tend the fields where their vegetables came from, they would save the tax payer thousands.
Another place we could save money from is by giving incentives to various agencies to become more efficient. Instead of saying that if they don't use all their funding this year they won't get it next year, tell them that funding won't decrease and that it will increase by a percentage of what was saved. The current system merely punishes underspending. Overspend and you get berated, but you get your extra funding (it wouldn't be right not to pay your people). Underspend and you get you funding cut. This is fundamentally wrong. We should reward people for doing good things with our money.
Will we see results from all of the above this year? Not even close, I would estimate that it would take a decade for the debt to finally be paid if all the above was done (and I am no expert), but it is a start. The biggest problem with all of this is that, for some inexplicable reason, once the politicians get to Washington, DC, everything they ever learned finances goes right out the window. If any house in America operated like the US government, they would be bankrupt at the least. I can't imagine a bank saying OK if someone were to try and borrow more if they already were spending more than they made and had to borrow to pay their bills. It just doesn't happen. In reality, we have to live within our means. Raise taxes, reduce spending and pay our debts now. Then we can reduce our taxes later and decide if we really need to increase spending at that time. That's just my opinion, maybe you have a better solution. No matter how you look at it, something needs done. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Our Independence Day, what patriotism means to me.
Today's post will be a patriotic thing, you've been warned.
There seems so much that this country has done for us that we take for granted. In my years in the navy, I have been to several other countries. From the affluent to the destitute, there is always something America has, that the other countries don't. Yet, when we are asked to sacrifice for the country that has given us so much, we tend to answer with, "what's in it for me?" We take for granted that we are given so much. We all know that should we fall on hard times, the government will give us what we need to survive. From welfare to food stamps, we expect our government to take care of us all along the way. So much so, that we get angry when we are asked to give up a portion of our wages so that we can pay for these programs we rely on.
We ask the government to protect us from enemies, both external and internal, yet we refuse to support our troops because they are following orders of people you don't agree with. We ask the government to keep our food safe, yet we rail at the cost of watching it. We ask the government to provide our retirement, yet refuse to live within our means. How can we expect our nation to endure if only our government must give of itself? How can we endure if only the other group is to pay for it all? We must all give of ourselves to keep this country great.
There is a famous Benjamin Franklin quote that is making the rounds. You have probably heard it, it says, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither," Or something similar. While this is true to a certain extent, I believe there is more to it. We have all heard the saying, "Freedom isn't free." This is true as well, but we tend to forget it. I believe that the two sayings should go together as follows, "Those who aren't willing to pay for their freedom and security deserve neither." I am not saying that you have to join the military and die for your country. What I am saying is that we should be more willing to give of ourselves for our country. Give of our time and serve. Volunteer to help the police and fire departments at the next parade. Take a meal or two down to the precinct or fire station every once in a while. Pay your taxes. Vote. Call your senator and tell him what concerns you. Recognize what is a real need in your life and recognize what you can give up. Why is it that we as Americans can raise billions of dollars in just a few weeks when there is a disaster abroad, but we can't even raise a few million when it comes to the nation/state/city we live in? Why is it we can give so greatly to others and live so well ourselves, yet we can't give any to our home? How is it that we can yell cut spending in the same sentence we can yell give us our stuff? I don't envy our leaders these days. They cannot win. In order to balance the budget, they have to cut programs, which means lost jobs, pay, or both and they have to raise taxes. There is no way our government can meet the demands our nation has put on it and maintain a balanced budget. It is impossible. With that being said, on this Independence day, think on what it is you have given for your country and ask yourself, "can I give more?" I know I can and should and I have served in the military for 18+ years. How about you?
Have a wonderful 4th of July. God bless America.
There seems so much that this country has done for us that we take for granted. In my years in the navy, I have been to several other countries. From the affluent to the destitute, there is always something America has, that the other countries don't. Yet, when we are asked to sacrifice for the country that has given us so much, we tend to answer with, "what's in it for me?" We take for granted that we are given so much. We all know that should we fall on hard times, the government will give us what we need to survive. From welfare to food stamps, we expect our government to take care of us all along the way. So much so, that we get angry when we are asked to give up a portion of our wages so that we can pay for these programs we rely on.
We ask the government to protect us from enemies, both external and internal, yet we refuse to support our troops because they are following orders of people you don't agree with. We ask the government to keep our food safe, yet we rail at the cost of watching it. We ask the government to provide our retirement, yet refuse to live within our means. How can we expect our nation to endure if only our government must give of itself? How can we endure if only the other group is to pay for it all? We must all give of ourselves to keep this country great.
There is a famous Benjamin Franklin quote that is making the rounds. You have probably heard it, it says, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither," Or something similar. While this is true to a certain extent, I believe there is more to it. We have all heard the saying, "Freedom isn't free." This is true as well, but we tend to forget it. I believe that the two sayings should go together as follows, "Those who aren't willing to pay for their freedom and security deserve neither." I am not saying that you have to join the military and die for your country. What I am saying is that we should be more willing to give of ourselves for our country. Give of our time and serve. Volunteer to help the police and fire departments at the next parade. Take a meal or two down to the precinct or fire station every once in a while. Pay your taxes. Vote. Call your senator and tell him what concerns you. Recognize what is a real need in your life and recognize what you can give up. Why is it that we as Americans can raise billions of dollars in just a few weeks when there is a disaster abroad, but we can't even raise a few million when it comes to the nation/state/city we live in? Why is it we can give so greatly to others and live so well ourselves, yet we can't give any to our home? How is it that we can yell cut spending in the same sentence we can yell give us our stuff? I don't envy our leaders these days. They cannot win. In order to balance the budget, they have to cut programs, which means lost jobs, pay, or both and they have to raise taxes. There is no way our government can meet the demands our nation has put on it and maintain a balanced budget. It is impossible. With that being said, on this Independence day, think on what it is you have given for your country and ask yourself, "can I give more?" I know I can and should and I have served in the military for 18+ years. How about you?
Have a wonderful 4th of July. God bless America.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
My thoughts on Taxes
The topic of this post is as simple as it is controvertial. Taxes. Everyone hates them, no one wants them, and everyone has ideas on who and how much. The problem as I see it is that the tax code is neither fair, equal, or straight forward enough. Allow me to address these issues.
First we'll tackle equal. Is it fair that the more you make the higher the percentage you are required to make? I didn't say higher amount, I said percentage. This is where there are large problems. As I see it, making more shouldn't mean that you pay a higher percentage. The percentage should remain unchanged. By doing this the taxes will be equal for all. No one can argue that it isn't equal if we all pay the same percentage. Yes, if you make more money you pay more money in taxes, but 10 cents on the dollar is 10 cents on the dollar regaurdless of the number of dollars you have. It is true that if you make $1,000,000 you will pay $100,000 in taxes. But you still have $900,000 to play with, not to many families I know of make a quarter of that and live just fine, well even. Thus, regaurdles of amount made, a flat 10% is equal.
Second, we'll tackle fair. How is it fair that, even though a multi millionaire is in a 50% tax bracker, he actually pays less than 10% in taxes? The fact is, that once you reach a certain income level, you can afford the right lawyers to find enough tax loop holes and deductables to reduce your income to the point where you essentially are not considered rich. The only way a flat tax can ever work is if we eliminate all deductions and tax breaks. Sure, on paper you pay a higher percentage in taxes the richer you are, but this is only true until you reach that magical point where paying for a tax lawyer and accountant pays for itself in keeping your tax levels low enough. If I pay for H&R block to do my taxes, I actually lose money. Thye would charge me about $80 and the last time I use them they only found me $50 that I hadn't been able to find, thus I lost $30. Taxes should be fair enough that you can't reduce what you pay by hiring a lawyer. But this also falls under the straight forward enough category which is next.
Finally, we need a tax code that is Straight forward. This means that all you need to do your taxes is basic math. In order to do your taxes now, you almost need a law degree. The complexity of the tax code is such that, without a computer program, a lawyer, or and accountant, you would never be able to file your taxes properly. You would either miss a deduction or you would claim one for which you didn't qualify without them. If you don't believe me, take a look at what is out there. H&R Block, Taxbusters, Taxcut, etc. none of these would exist without a complex taxcode that people couldn't follow. Why should the government give refunds? How hard does it have to be to figure out how much you owe in taxes every year? If you can't figure out how much you owe for your taxes each paycheck, how can we be expected to withhold the right amount? The complexity of the tax code by itself is enough to be a drain on the nation. If we are so concerned with the national budget, maybe we ought to look at where the money is coming from.
There is a solution to all of this. I have hinted at it (if I haven't come right out and said it). It's a flat income tax. a percentage straight accross all pay levels. No deductions, no credits, no incentives, just a straight percentage. I did the math a while ago. I found the lowest average income per household in the US that I could find on the internet (it was $39,000 and change so I rounded it to $40,000 for simplicity)(the overall average for the numbers was about $62,000). Multiplied it by the population of the US as of the last census (308,000,000 people). Multiplied that result by 10%. The reult was just over $1.2 TRILLION dollars. For clarification, every average was based on total reported pay divided by total population. I can already hear some of you saying what about the poor, they can't afford to eat and you want them to pay $10 to the government? I thought of that and realized that if we don't ask them to pay, then we shouldn't give them food stamps and welfare. There can be no exceptions. If your income is such that you need food stamps etc. to live, then you need your tax return to prove it. The systems are in place to aid you and you will still get them. If the military (who recieves 100% of their pay from the government) pays taxes, so should anyone who recieves anything from the government.
I don't mean to come accross as an uncaring hardliner. The fact is, if a flat 10% tax rate were invoked, I would be one of those who paid more in taxes. In fact, for the last few years I have been one of those who got more back than I put in. After all of my deductions, I owed no taxes. On top of that, I was eligable for several credits. Thus I recieved a tax return for more than my withholding. I am willing to pay 10% of my pay for an equal, fair, and simple tax system. How about you?
First we'll tackle equal. Is it fair that the more you make the higher the percentage you are required to make? I didn't say higher amount, I said percentage. This is where there are large problems. As I see it, making more shouldn't mean that you pay a higher percentage. The percentage should remain unchanged. By doing this the taxes will be equal for all. No one can argue that it isn't equal if we all pay the same percentage. Yes, if you make more money you pay more money in taxes, but 10 cents on the dollar is 10 cents on the dollar regaurdless of the number of dollars you have. It is true that if you make $1,000,000 you will pay $100,000 in taxes. But you still have $900,000 to play with, not to many families I know of make a quarter of that and live just fine, well even. Thus, regaurdles of amount made, a flat 10% is equal.
Second, we'll tackle fair. How is it fair that, even though a multi millionaire is in a 50% tax bracker, he actually pays less than 10% in taxes? The fact is, that once you reach a certain income level, you can afford the right lawyers to find enough tax loop holes and deductables to reduce your income to the point where you essentially are not considered rich. The only way a flat tax can ever work is if we eliminate all deductions and tax breaks. Sure, on paper you pay a higher percentage in taxes the richer you are, but this is only true until you reach that magical point where paying for a tax lawyer and accountant pays for itself in keeping your tax levels low enough. If I pay for H&R block to do my taxes, I actually lose money. Thye would charge me about $80 and the last time I use them they only found me $50 that I hadn't been able to find, thus I lost $30. Taxes should be fair enough that you can't reduce what you pay by hiring a lawyer. But this also falls under the straight forward enough category which is next.
Finally, we need a tax code that is Straight forward. This means that all you need to do your taxes is basic math. In order to do your taxes now, you almost need a law degree. The complexity of the tax code is such that, without a computer program, a lawyer, or and accountant, you would never be able to file your taxes properly. You would either miss a deduction or you would claim one for which you didn't qualify without them. If you don't believe me, take a look at what is out there. H&R Block, Taxbusters, Taxcut, etc. none of these would exist without a complex taxcode that people couldn't follow. Why should the government give refunds? How hard does it have to be to figure out how much you owe in taxes every year? If you can't figure out how much you owe for your taxes each paycheck, how can we be expected to withhold the right amount? The complexity of the tax code by itself is enough to be a drain on the nation. If we are so concerned with the national budget, maybe we ought to look at where the money is coming from.
There is a solution to all of this. I have hinted at it (if I haven't come right out and said it). It's a flat income tax. a percentage straight accross all pay levels. No deductions, no credits, no incentives, just a straight percentage. I did the math a while ago. I found the lowest average income per household in the US that I could find on the internet (it was $39,000 and change so I rounded it to $40,000 for simplicity)(the overall average for the numbers was about $62,000). Multiplied it by the population of the US as of the last census (308,000,000 people). Multiplied that result by 10%. The reult was just over $1.2 TRILLION dollars. For clarification, every average was based on total reported pay divided by total population. I can already hear some of you saying what about the poor, they can't afford to eat and you want them to pay $10 to the government? I thought of that and realized that if we don't ask them to pay, then we shouldn't give them food stamps and welfare. There can be no exceptions. If your income is such that you need food stamps etc. to live, then you need your tax return to prove it. The systems are in place to aid you and you will still get them. If the military (who recieves 100% of their pay from the government) pays taxes, so should anyone who recieves anything from the government.
I don't mean to come accross as an uncaring hardliner. The fact is, if a flat 10% tax rate were invoked, I would be one of those who paid more in taxes. In fact, for the last few years I have been one of those who got more back than I put in. After all of my deductions, I owed no taxes. On top of that, I was eligable for several credits. Thus I recieved a tax return for more than my withholding. I am willing to pay 10% of my pay for an equal, fair, and simple tax system. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)