As long as they are legitimate businesses charging sales tax, this could be handled with reimbursement like Flex medical accounts just as easily for businesses without debit/credit infrastructures (I haven't heard of communities that are cash only, can you post information?).
If you have $50k in interest and dividends, you aren't middle class (unless the dividends are from a closely held C-Corp). Most middle class people would be lucky to have $5k I would have an income tax, abolish FICA taxes, itemized deductions, and most tax credits. We would have a $15K standard deduction per working person, so somebody making minimum wage, would essentially pay $0 in federal taxes on their income taxes. The deduction would be set to inflate with minimum wage. We'd have tax rates of 5/10/15/20/25/30/35/40/45/50. 25% of dividends would be tax-free. No way of knowing how practical the system would be, but it would do away with a lot of the garbage in congress, reduce fraudulent returns, and simplify the tax code.
You couldn't just enter your SSN. It would be pretty easy to steal someone elses. For instance, I could subtract one from the last digit in my SSN, and I could use their exemption. Cards could be easily stolen.
Yeah I misread your post initially and revised my response. I didn't put this in my plan but I'm also perfectly on board with amending the tax system in any way that allows the United States to tax foreign held monies by Americans.
Certainly possible - I'd have to see the implementation, but we're quibbling over details at this point. I'm just concerned with the general idea that reimbursing/exempting people for something that is not easily trackable (total purchases over a year) will be more complex to manage than people think. A lot of poor people don't have credit cards. Many minorities don't even have bank accounts - so all of those people basically live in a cash-only society. And if any of them run home-based businesses or provide services in their communities, they certainly don't take credit.
This is true. My personal goal is not to only help middle and lower classes while punishing upper class incomes. I want to set a mark that is higher than a simple middle class person but is still low enough that the super rich are not just getting richer and richer. I could also potentially get on board with an idea like this that totally strips down and rebuilds the system in a simpler way. However, I personally reject the idea that any dollar ever earned should be taxed at 50% by the federal government. It may seem silly, but I just think the idea that government would take half of a dollar earned is simply too much. I also think we could resolve the issues without going that high personally.
Eliminating the FICA tax, which is 7.65% Employer and Employee (ignoring our temporary 2% employee reduction), needs to be replaced. How high of an income level triggers each bracket will be dependent on revenue need. Since I don't have that information or time, I can't say what dollar level would trigger each. I'd also be instituting Universal Health Care.
Complexity in the tax code is how Congress derives its power. Thousands of pages of carrots and sticks to help favored constituents/donors and penalize others. Not to mention the social engineering aspect, where you can nickel and dime people into behavior you approve of. For many that's an intoxicating power. They have zero incentive to fix it, favored constituents like their carve outs and other voters don't know/care. This frothing desire to grab the wealth of others is hard for me to understand. It feels like envy/greed turned into a virtue. If you want to keep what you've earned, you're greedy. But the people that want your wealth are not considered greedy (and don't even have the shame to express any gratitude to the golden geese, who should be exalted rather than maligned). These simplification ideas are great and can lead to improved growth by removing market distortions (decisions based on the tax code rather than what makes economic sense). But the real problem at the macro level is the volume of wealth being confiscated as a % of GDP. The state is confiscating too much wealth, period.
How do you feel about the frothing desire to pay for the services our government provides? The only difference between the two parties is that the Dems like to pay for things, while Republicans like to simply borrow money. Both parties spend excessively, though on different programs. What do you think is the proper % that government should take and why?
Remind me which party has proposed and voted for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Only enough to perform constitutionally mandated functions. 10 cents of every dollar (tithing levels) would be a good starting point.
Completely true, using the SSN is not a great idea. Just like credit cards, but they can be just as easily canceled and using them fraudulently would then be a federal offense.
You mean the party that did it when they knew it wouldn't pass? And, when they did have power, when on a huge debt-based spending spree, expanding everything from the military to entitlement programs and governed on a stated philosophy by their VP that "deficits don't matter"? That would be the GOP. Symbolic votes isn't governing. They had a chance to lead - and they went on a spending spree. So I take it that you're against the SEC, FAA, food safety regulations, etc? There should be no federal regulation of business or markets?
I don't believe it would be complex at all. Many of the working poor could also use their exemption as a functional EIC system, selling their exemptions to people (which I would allow specifically so that people don't end up forfeiting their exemptions). I would assume a lot of this is changing. Anyone who gets paid by ADP, for example, will have been given the option for a stored value card which functionally operates as a bank account and gives debit/credit access to the card. The home based businesses might not even be charging tax in the first place in those communities, so such an exemption wouldn't be used there.
Incorrect, the 1997 BBA passed the House and was one vote short in the Senate (only Dems opposed it, many Dems supported it). http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00024 Certainly against regulations, yes. Who votes for them? No one we elect. We don't even know who they are. I was taught Article I gives Congress the sole authority to pass laws. Just say no to edicts and decrees (sorry, "regulations") Laws pertaining to theft/fraud/third party effects are legitimate, but they should be voted on (and done largely at the state level).
Yes, well, for example--- The SEC is then bound to enforce laws passed by Congress---ex: Sarbanes-Oxley which was an Act of Congress, then Dodd-Frank which again, is an Act of Congress. Pretty much all of the powers it maintains to keep its' functional purpose of regulating the markets stems from Congress. The laws it enforces stem from Congress. So next time you ask where the regulations come from? Congress.
And then those same people actually came to power and went on a massive debt-fueled spending spree. What does that tell you? You vote for someone to pass laws - not regulations. If those people vote to allow someone else to write regulations, you had your say. You want a bunch of lawyers drafting medical regulations? Or a bunch of farmers drafting financial regulations? Not using actual expertise seems like the absolute pinnacle of inefficiency and bad lawmaking. Besides, the Constitution specifies the federal government's goal is to provide for the general welfare of the people. Regulations help provide for the general welfare of the people. I don't see how this is not a Constitutionally defined role of government. I guess it certainly doesn't mandate that - can you list the roles of government that the Constitution mandates?
Congress cannot cede its legislative authority to an executive agency. They can't pass a law giving an unelected body the power to decree new laws. Article I only gives Congress this authority. (Constitutional issues aside, why would anyone want to be governed by unelected Ministries?) Regulations are not enforcement of existing law, they are creation of new law. The SEC is much more than an enforcement agency, it is a rule making agency as well.
Sigh. http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml Pray tell which laws the SEC are conjuring specifically, other than interpretations of Acts of Congress. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 With this Act, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Investment Company Act of 1940 is an act of Congress. The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 was passed by Congress in conjunction with the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 As for the EPA--- It's fairly clear Acts of Congress and Congress itself hold all the leashes---and yes, all legislative power is vested in Congress, including the legislative power to grant certain bodies small technical areas where they can interpret broad swathes of law passed by Congress, lest we have Congressmen doing 483505 things at once, including deposing JP Morgan for violations stemming from LIBOR manipulation, and crafting area-by-area regulations for clean water. But let's address your now irrelevant point of why would people want to be governed by unelected ministries? A curious argument given your ideology's warped view of public choice theory. A band of politicians swayed by short term interests and with no knowledge of the field are of course the best at delegating specific technical rules and regulations. Indeed. As for your rather curious argument for constitutionally mandated functions, Congress is specifically enumerated to regulate interstate commerce, so the functions of the SEC and the EPA (which are to regulate interstate commerce) would fall under your vague definition of government. This isn't even an issue of enumerated vs unenumerated rights, it says right in the Constitution.
