When you ask people what is needed to build a house, building, or other structures larger than a shack, you will hear these words, "footings or a foundation are needed to support the structure." The importance is to generate a secure base to stabilize the upper structure from falling, like houses and buildings. Organizations also require foundations. It does not matter whether the organization be private business-where the foundation usually lays in the founder of the business and the management theory adopted to operate the business, religious-where many sects claim Jesus Christ as their foundation, Catholics with Peter, Muslims with Muhammad, or the Jews with Moses, and governments-their foundations are the documents and law used to form the government. A meeting of the minds is not hard to come by when discussing the need of a good foundation to build successful structures. What is important, though, is the maintenance of the structure and the foundation.
Without proper care and maintenance the elements of time will wear down the structure and eventually become a cancer to the foundation and will have to be torn down and rebuilt if the foundation is still strong. Sadly, sometimes because of neglect and improper maintenance of the structure results in the total collapse of the structure and expose the foundation to the elements, resulting in the need of total rebuilding, if possible. History, however, has shown that the original foundation is unable to be re-exacted, as in the case of the USSR. Though the world is better without the USSR, the people who now compose the Russian Federation could disagree. The reason being, the immoral corruption that, once hidden, is now viewed openly. It is this current corruption running rampant in Russia that is slowly taking the freedom the noble people fought for in the early nineties with the collapse of the USSR. The current foundation that is the Russian Federation, is built upon noble causes, but is not an overtly strong foundation. We see this in the shadow dictatorship held by Putin, which should be of grave concern to America.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
My answer to taxes...
Ask any one person about the ten most things that they dislike about America and I can guruantee that paying taxes is in the top five; right after the malice feelings towards congress. Well, after much thought I have decided that federal income taxes as they are now are unfair and un-American. In truth, all taxes I feel are un-American, but realize that they are a necessary evil.
However, if this new means of taxation passed, we would see the elimination of the IRS (for the most part) and major down sizing of other government entities. Here is my idea: Instead of having to pay taxes from each pay check, you now would pay based on how much you spend. That's right, after much thought and research, I think that a federal tax on spending is fair and would be efficient.
Take for instance that last year consumer spending alone was 8.5 thousand billion dollars (8.5 trillion), from which the majority of this money is taxable as current law is written.Now if you apply a .03 percent to ever dollar spent the federal government would be able to collect 2.5 trillion dollars annually. This would cover the current government expidentures and money collected from income taxes in 2009. According to the Heritage Foundation's website total tax revenue for 2009 is expeccted to be around 2.14 trillion dollars, and will contiue to grow unless major change takes place.
Many opponents of this type of taxation will argue that consumer spending would decrese because people, especially poor people, will spend less as a result of the increase taxation. True, to a point. As it stands now, over 25 states have a sales tax and many of these states poor purchase goods. If you are concerned for the poor population than grocery purchases could be excluded with a .005 increase in the federal sales tax on other goods.
Like I mentioned before this would create a equal standing for the population as a whole and the middle class would not be hit the hardest with income tax expenditures like we are currently seeing. In my opinion it is unethical to tax the population on a scale based on your yearly income. The federal government seems to have forgotten that 100,000 does not spread as far as it did two decades ago, and taxing 30% of the middle class income, because they are considered the 1% of the wealthiest Americans is wrong. Not only wrong, but immoral; especially seeing how the federal government has other means of creating tax revenue that is equal across the population base.
Another argument for many would be tax returns, here is where a somewhat liberal idea will be put forth. As we all know you must please liberals to get something passed in congress, since the majority are babies. To please liberals I would suggest that anyone making under 50,000 per year receive some type of tax rebate. How to determine this amount would be open to debate.
The second method I am for is the flat tax, which would create a tax base that has a ceiling for all of the population. Just to recap, after much thought and consideration a federal sales tax, I feel be the best means and equally means of taxation. This would allow the removal of taxes needing to be taken away in your montly paycheck and allow you to take the money home to spend it on consumer goods. For businesses I will follow-up after some more research.
However, if this new means of taxation passed, we would see the elimination of the IRS (for the most part) and major down sizing of other government entities. Here is my idea: Instead of having to pay taxes from each pay check, you now would pay based on how much you spend. That's right, after much thought and research, I think that a federal tax on spending is fair and would be efficient.
Take for instance that last year consumer spending alone was 8.5 thousand billion dollars (8.5 trillion), from which the majority of this money is taxable as current law is written.Now if you apply a .03 percent to ever dollar spent the federal government would be able to collect 2.5 trillion dollars annually. This would cover the current government expidentures and money collected from income taxes in 2009. According to the Heritage Foundation's website total tax revenue for 2009 is expeccted to be around 2.14 trillion dollars, and will contiue to grow unless major change takes place.
Many opponents of this type of taxation will argue that consumer spending would decrese because people, especially poor people, will spend less as a result of the increase taxation. True, to a point. As it stands now, over 25 states have a sales tax and many of these states poor purchase goods. If you are concerned for the poor population than grocery purchases could be excluded with a .005 increase in the federal sales tax on other goods.
Like I mentioned before this would create a equal standing for the population as a whole and the middle class would not be hit the hardest with income tax expenditures like we are currently seeing. In my opinion it is unethical to tax the population on a scale based on your yearly income. The federal government seems to have forgotten that 100,000 does not spread as far as it did two decades ago, and taxing 30% of the middle class income, because they are considered the 1% of the wealthiest Americans is wrong. Not only wrong, but immoral; especially seeing how the federal government has other means of creating tax revenue that is equal across the population base.
Another argument for many would be tax returns, here is where a somewhat liberal idea will be put forth. As we all know you must please liberals to get something passed in congress, since the majority are babies. To please liberals I would suggest that anyone making under 50,000 per year receive some type of tax rebate. How to determine this amount would be open to debate.
The second method I am for is the flat tax, which would create a tax base that has a ceiling for all of the population. Just to recap, after much thought and consideration a federal sales tax, I feel be the best means and equally means of taxation. This would allow the removal of taxes needing to be taken away in your montly paycheck and allow you to take the money home to spend it on consumer goods. For businesses I will follow-up after some more research.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Haven't done what I wanted to do
Because of unexpected problems with the involvement required for my classes this semster I have not posted about the items that I wanted to. I feel that many of the issues to which I feel strong about will have to wait as receiving good grades this semster is more important to me, right noe. I hope after mid-terms things will begin to quiet down and I will be able to post about some of the issues I want to discuss.
But on another note. Today I read that Romney and Palin have both backed McCain for reelection in the the Senate. Romney stated, that he can not image the US Senate without McCain. Well, Romney, that is just the problem many Americans have, people, like you, have problems imagining a better future for America. You sir, have lost my vote for the 2012 presidental election; as have you Sarah Palin for backing McCain too. I really thought you two believed in conservatism. Boy, how wrong I was. Here is the link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_el_se/us_romney_mccain
But on another note. Today I read that Romney and Palin have both backed McCain for reelection in the the Senate. Romney stated, that he can not image the US Senate without McCain. Well, Romney, that is just the problem many Americans have, people, like you, have problems imagining a better future for America. You sir, have lost my vote for the 2012 presidental election; as have you Sarah Palin for backing McCain too. I really thought you two believed in conservatism. Boy, how wrong I was. Here is the link. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100223/ap_on_el_se/us_romney_mccain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
