The premises from which natural moral law derive are the biological independence of thinking and feeling, and the equal moral worth of all human beings. Thus a foundation of justice is equality before the law. People with equal conditions should be treated the same.

Equality implies that all persons are equal self-owners. If one person imposes his will on another, the victim becomes a slave, and the tyrant becomes a master, in violation of equality. Self-ownership implies that one fully owns one’s labor, and therefore any tax on wages or the products of labor, or the spending of wages, violates self-ownership, and is unjust.

Self-ownership does not apply to what the self does not create, namely, natural resources. The equality premise implies that all persons benefit equally from the value of what nature provides. The value of natural resources, including spatial land, is measured by how much people are willing to pay to use them, namely, the economic rent. Economic justice requires that all persons have an equal share of the natural land rent, and that each worker be free to keep his entire wage.

A just tax system does not tax wages, goods, exchange, value-added, and entrepreneurial profits. Economic justice is implemented by collecting the economic rent of land and distributing it either in equal shares of cash or in public goods that benefit the public generally. The rent generated by nature would be globally distributed, while the land rental generated by local population, commerce, and public goods would be distributed to the local population.

Since the rent morally belongs to individual persons in equal shares in the relevant communities, a strict application of equality would be to rent payments in cash, which individuals could use to pay for services such as education or, as members of some association, as dues for the provision of public goods. Such payments are often referred to as citizens’ or residents’ dividends.

“Fairness” means that you get what you deserve, and deserve what you get. Like justice, fairness applies equality. We are born with a genetically programmed sense of equality. Children instinctively feel that it is unfair for one to get a better toy than another. But the application of equality in fairness is broader than in justice

It is not fair for some persons to be more talented or beautiful than others. A person who is born with high intelligence, beauty, strength, and talent did nothing to earn these qualities. One person does not deserve to have a better genetic inheritance than another. Nature is unfair.

A financial inheritance is also unfair. When a child is born to rich parents, the child has done nothing to deserve the good fortune. It is unfair for one child to have a rich family while some other child has a poor family.

It is also not fair for some people to live in a country at peace, while other have to suffer thru war. Those who suffer from violence, persecution, and arbitrary negative discrimination do not deserve these outcomes.

But morality requires justice rather than fairness. As the saying goes, “life is unfair”. However, natural moral law, when applied, does remove that portion of unfairness, such as violence, that is also unjust.

When politicians and commentators talk about making people pay their “fair share” of taxes, they seldom analyze what “fairness” means. They presume that it is fair for the rich to pay a greater share of their income in taxes than the poor, and that even though the rich today are paying a very large portion of taxes, they should pay even more. But fairness advocates have no logical formula for determining how much is “fair.” They also provide no analysis as to what extent the incomes of the rich are deserved.

A pure fair tax would confiscate gains from those who have undeserved qualities such as genetic and financial inheritances. A truly fair tax would collect all the land rent and distribute it equally, because nobody deserves more of the land rent than anyone else, but it would go beyond that to tax and redistribute equally all gains other than what one earns from one’s labor.

But these outcomes are not what advocates of “fair” taxation want. The “fair share taxes” organization seeks to eliminate property taxes and to keep taxing income including wages. They also want to tax net worth, which would tax savings from labor.

The “fair tax” organization seeks a national sales tax, with no sound analysis of what fairness means. If a tax on wages is unfair, because one deserves what one earns, then it is equally unfair to tax wages when they are spent. A national sales tax would also subsidize land values as the public goods paid for by sales taxes would generate undeserved land rent and land value.

Most advocates of fairness in taxation have a subjective feeling of what is fair, and indulge in not having examined the ethical and economic aspects of fairness. We should be advocating justice rather than fairness, because any fairness that goes beyond justice violates liberty and natural rights. Young children want everything to be fair, but mature adults should realize that we just have to accept the unfairness of one person being struck by lightning while others are not.

Did you want to pass on to your children a nation that is trillions in debt that they, their children, their grandchildren, great granchildren and generations beyond that to come will have to pay for? One day they will wake up and ask us what we were thinking.

In 2012, we have two big government, tax increasing, pro-war candidates. The Republicans were not smarte enough to nominate a true conservative, or a Libertarian-leaning candidate. So, now, we have to leave the leadership of this great nation to someone who, prior to the Presidency, his only true leadership experience was in community organizing. I have about as much leadership experience personally, as he does. 2014′s mid-term elections may be our last chance to save this nation.

If the Republican candidates would just SHUT THE HELL UP on moral issues, NO ONE WANTS THE GOVERNMENT IN OUR BEDROOMS, just like we do NOT want them in our wallets or cars.

My ideas on avoiding the fiscal cliff, which may not gain too much traction, are as follows:

1.) CLOSE GITMO. MR. President, in 2008, you promised this, and you have yet to do it.
2.) CLOSE the overseas bases that were built for World Ward II, Korea and Vietnam. Why are we still operating them?
3.) GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE. This constitutionally illegal organization is making situations worse for us financially.
4.) WE MUST ELIMINATE DUPLICATIVE AGENCIES WITHIN GOVERNMENT. All they do is cause waste.
5.) PASS THE FAIR TAX. The Fair Tax not only simplifies the tax code, and saves the people millions in tax compliance, it also ELIMINATES the vile, putrid, evil IRS.
6.) The FAIR TAX also discourages sending jobs overseas and attracts new business like nothing else.
7.) ELIMINATE the National Endowment for the Arts, STOP Wasting OUR money on pieces of scrap and torn cloths you foolishly call art. Pass each piece of so-called “artwork” by me first before declaring it as art.
8.) ELIMINATE the National Education Association, they are in it for the power, not the education of our children. Teachers NEED to work to keep their jobs. GET RID of the worthless ones, ELIMINATE the dumb rubber rooms, too, while we’re at it. FIRE the worthless ones, make them try to get a job elsewhere, like what happenes to REAL people.
9.) GET RID of at least half of the silly regulations that have been imposed on private-sector business over the past 10 years. Release them from the shackles the government has bound them with.
9.) GET RID OF THE NSA PATRIOT ACT. Don’t need it.

That is all for now, without gloating, maybe I should be the President’s next advisor. Yeah that’ll happen.

Several tax rates that affect small business are set to expire at the end of this year. Some of the changes that will impact small business include:

● Individual income tax rates would rise; the 15 percent bracket would become the lowest tax rate. The 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent brackets would rise to 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent

● The estate tax rate would increase from 35 percent to 55 percent, and the exemption would decrease to $1 million from $5 million

● The capital gains rate would increase to 20 percent from 15 percent for top earners and rise to 10 percent from zero for those with lower incomes

● Dividends would be taxed as ordinary income rather than capital gains

● The Section 179 expensing limit will fall back to $25,000 and real property will no longer be included

● The start-up deduction for businesses will be reduced from $10,000 to $5,000

● An estimated 31 million additional taxpayers would be required to pay the AMT

This adds up to an almost $500 billion tax increase for 2013 alone. This is a major concern for small business owners like me, since I do not know what my tax liability will be next year. The uncertainty this creates is already having an impact on my ability to make plans to grow my business or add jobs.

Most small businesses are organized as pass-through entities, where the business owner reports their business’s income on their individual tax returns. Allowing the current tax rates to expire will increase the taxes that small businesses pay, directly impacting the ability of small-business owners to invest money back into their businesses.

Raising taxes on small businesses, especially in the current economic environment, hurts our ability to grow and create jobs. I encourage you to give small-business owners the certainty we desperately need by extending all the current tax rates across the board and fighting to avoid the Fiscal Cliff.

Message delivered to:
Senator Bill Nelson
U.S. Senate
716 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 205100001
Fax: (202) 228-2183 via fax

Message delivered to:
Senator Marco Rubio
U.S. Senate
317 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 205100001
Fax: (202) 228-0285 via fax

Message delivered to:
Representative Gus Michael Bilirakis
U.S. House of Representatives
407 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 205150001
Fax: (202) 225-4085 via fax

He says a person should be able to own a gun for self defense.  And he says a person should be able to own a gun for hunting.  And he believes in the second amendment.

Then he says he does NOT know why anyone other than the police or military should own semi-automatic weapons.  Guess What Bob.  King George III of England thought just like you when he sent his Jack Booted Thugs to Concord to destroy the guns and stores that were there. 

Luckily for us (and that includes YOU Bob Costas) the American’s were armed with weapons similar to those possessed by the British Army.  The American “Militia” were able to frustrate the British expedition and as a result, YOU Bob Costas are free today to babble your nonsense all over the air waves.

And from us Gun Owners out here that really understand WHY the Second Amendment is there, You are Welcome.

The fear factory that is leftist media would have you believe that the situation is the fault of greedy rightwing old men.  In a rare high percentage of truth in media, however, this is only a half truth.  The other half of the blame belongs to the left.

You see, Reagan was right:  government is not the solution to a problem; government is the problem.

Government spending is capricious, ravenous, and it won’t stop even when the money runs out.  The money stolen from you and me by the federal highwaymen is squandered in ridiculous fashion.  Social programs, inefficient eco-mental initiatives, and so many bureaucratic organizations all comprise the black hole into which our tax dollars flow.

The Obama administration and Nancy Pelosi have resorted to extortion to force the hands of their opponents, holding hostage those who at least pay lip service to the idea of serving the American people.

I am by no means well off, but I manage to live comfortably.  I have no credit cards, my bills are paid each month, and I have a bit left over to put toward the projects or hobbies I have.  If something comes along I can’t afford at the time, I have to pass on it.  I never studied accounting, but I can at least do basic arithmetic.  If I can figure out how to live within my means, you’d think it’d be a simple thing for those in Washington to do so.  Alas, we’ve rounded up the socially useless and otherwise incompetent and sent them to Washington (or Hollywood).

Take note, Washington: if you want the economy to recover, you have to stop taking from the people their ability to contribute.  If Uncle Sam took his hand out of our pockets and allowed us to live without his oppression, the economy would recover.  Those behind the Fair Tax initiative understand this.

Subsidizing ineffective government bureaucracies and programs as economic stimulus is ignorant in the extreme.  There is nothing the government can do better than private industry.  As a rule, private schools produce better students than do public schools.  Your personal vehicle is a lot nicer than the filthy, disgusting venues that are public transport.  People with initiative and drive are better off than those sucking on the government teat… or would be if they weren’t being punished for being productive.

This talk of a fiscal cliff is simply desirably-packaged social cyanide.   Once you are afraid, you are easily  manipulated.

I have been told that Tom Cole does not support the FAIR Tax because he is supporting the “Flat Tax”. 

Why am I not surprised.

Those that have done their homework will remember that when the 16^th amendment was passed, the people pushing it lied like a rug. 

A brief history of the 16^th amendment: 

Income Tax actually introduced by a Democrat (from Texas no less).  The “Bailey Bill” was its title.  Joseph W. Bailey was his name.  He actually opposed an income tax and wanted to try to embarrass the Republicans by having them openly oppose the bill.

The Republicans, who were at each other’s throats in 1909, took the bait and thought they would turn the tables on the Democrats by agreeing to it but only if a Constitutional Amendment could be passed in favor of it. 

Now it was not long before politicians of all stripes, with greed and artifice in their hearts and slobbering at the bit, embraced this amendment.  And surprise, surprise,  they told bold lies to get the gullible masses to vote for it in the States.   The way they did it was to promise to “Soak the Rich”.  Just like the Obama Voters, this class warfare resonated with the voting “Head Count” (term used to describe the Roman “citizens” who, like Democrats today, Voted for a living). 

And like the promise that your “Social Security Number” would NEVER be used as a National Identifying number, (yeah, believe it or not, this is in the congressional record) they promised that the majority of people would not be taxed.  And they sort of kept their promise for a very few years.  But the circus games had begun.  Exemptions and surtaxes were the norm as rates constantly rose.  Never believe a Politician.

And thanks to the Cheap Politicians who can be bought cheap, the rich are able to carve out for themselves loop holes and special protections in the massive 73,608+ pages of the present tax code.  For instance, we in American pay about twice as much per pound for sugar as anyone anywhere else in the world.  And have been paying twice as much for years.  Why you ask?  Because Cheap Politicians have been bribed for years by the wealthy sugar growers in the southeast to keep paying  them subsidies so they can price their sugar low to keep out cheaper imports.  You are paying Tax Dollars to force you to pay twice as much for sugar while those same tax dollars make the circuit from you, to the sugar producer and finally back to the politician who makes them possible.  The Fair tax takes this ability away from the crooks in congress.

The 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States declares that your private papers, your home, your business, etc  will be safe from search or seizure.  But the IRS code not only allows the Government to know how much you make, its tax system also forces you to tell them how much your pay for day care, how much you give to church, how much medical expenses you have.  It also by implication allows your private property to be stolen (seized) by armed agents (or tech savvy pencil pushers) for alleged underpayment of taxes or some other government manufactured legal violation.

These are but a few of the reasons that we have to get away from any income tax system.  It was set up not as it was sold to us, to “soak the Rich” but to soak the hard working and reward the crook in congress.  For proof,  This little paragraph in the tax code basically releases the “Rich” from paying most of those taxes.   

“Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall apply…to any corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes.”

So the rich can set up foundations that qualify under one of these exemptions and they are off to the land of milk and honey, and you and I are stuck paying the freight.

Obama’s rant about making the “Rich” pay their fair share is total nonsense, directed at the “Head Count”.  He and the people like Tom Cole and Nancy Pelosi and Dirty Harry Reid who want to raise the tax rate on people making over $250,000 will NOT do a thing to the rich.  They will only make it harder for the working people to become rich, like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a lot of other crooks in Washington.  And the super rich will have to do nothing at all except continue on in their life styles.  Think John Hines Kerry is worried that the fortune he is spending that his wife inherited from her late hard working (and republican) husband may be hit by this tax and he may have to cut back on this life style.  Hardly. 

But the guy running the local McDonalds or your favorite restaurant will really be feeling the hit. And this is the way the income tax system, despite what you are told, was set up to do.  Also, Obamcare Will increase the taxes that each and everyone of us pays.  For instance:

Increased Medicare Payroll tax

Obama Care Excise Tax for anyone who does not think they need to purchase health care

Tax on Health Insurers – which Will be passed on to you

Excise tax on some health care plans.  Remember Comrade Obama thinks everyone should be exactly the same.

Higher Taxes on some biofuels which will be passed on to you

Tax on innovator Drug Companies which will be passed on to you

Tax on Medical Device Manufactures which will be passed on to you

Deduction for medical expenses over 7.5% of AGI now goes to 10% – A tax Directly on YOU

Medical Savings Accounts banned – higher cost to you for out of pocket medical expenses

Elimination of tax deductions for drug coverage

IRS given power to deny legal medical deductions because the do not think they are fair

Raises taxes on withdrawal from HAS (if you still have one)

Excise tax on Charitable Hospitals if they do NOT follow Obama’ mandates

This is CRAZY and the CRAZY little retard in the White House is the source of this misery.

This is why we have to scrap this system, repeal the 16^th amendment and implement a consumption tax at the retail level.  This system will have many advantages.  Now I am NOT a spokesman for the Fair Tax.  And I am sure they have a lot of  people who would do a much better job than me in articulating some of the reasons we MUST scrap the Income Tax System and replace it with the Fair Tax.  But here I go anyway.

1. You will get your privacy back.  No longer will some stranger have the ability to snoop through your bank account or check with your doctor to see if you really needed that new hip.  Over 100,000 IRS agents, who add not one DIME of value to our economy, will be available for real jobs.  This could even cut down the number of illegal and legal immigrants we have to import each year.  Think about it.
2. The rich will not be able to get out of paying taxes.  And they will pay proportionally more than you and me.  Think about this.  I go to JC Penny and buy a perfectly serviceable shirt for $25.  John Kerry Hines will go to Ascot Chang (yes, this is a real men’s…er, gentleman’s clothing store in New York).  He can and probably does pay between $248 and $355 for a shirt that is in reality no more serviceable than the one I paid $25 for.  But the big difference is that under the Fair Tax, I would pay $5.75 in tax and John Kerry Hines would pay between $57.04 and $81.65 in taxes.  The same goes for vacations.  I would stay at the Holiday Inn Suites in Las Vegas for $134 per night.  He, with his wife’s permission of course, might choose to stay at say, the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas for $40,000 per night. (yeah, again that is what a room would cost there)  I would pay $31.51 in tax, John Kerry Hines would pay $9,200 in tax.  We both get a nice room.  Because he is “Rich” he pays more tax.  Now if you want to “Soak the Rich” this is a Fair Way to do it.
3. Each and Every American will get what is known as a Prebate.  This of course is done to make sure the “Head Count” won’t have to actually get out and earn a living.  But the big difference between the Welfare State we have today, where only the people who vote for a living get anything, under the Fair Tax each and every American, even John Kerry Hines, will get a check between $2,569 and $11,514 depending on the number of dependents they have (not how much money they make).
4. Corporations will no longer have to pass the tax they pay on to their customers. Think about this.  And let’s be real.  Businesses do NOT pay taxes.  They actually do not pay for anything.  They merely transform labor, material, advertising, rent, material etc into products that consumers want to buy.  They pass the cost of EVERYTHING on to the consumers and add on enough profit to make it worth their while.  If you add a tax to this formula, then the business merely raises the price of his product enough to offset this tax.  People ARE paying this tax at the retail counter now.  It’s just hidden from you. Not only is the tax you pays hidden form you but the amount of tax embedded in each article he uses to make his product is hidden from you as well.  This concept should not be hard to grasp (unless you are an Obama Voter).
5. The 16^th Amendment will be repealed.  The most dreaded day in America, April 15^th  (or whatever day in April the IRS decides is DoomsDay that year)  just becomes another day.   You no longer have to try to keep records of stocks you bought 20 years ago so when you sell them you can figure out what your actual cost were. Americans will no longer spend 6.1 BILLION hours filing tax returns.  The IRS will no longer file more than 3.8 million levies, 980,000 tax liens or seize more than 600 hard assets and not put over 2000 people in jail each year for so called “tax crimes”.  One form of absolute tyranny will be gone from every working American’s life. Also, when you get your pay check, you get all of it.  There is NO money withheld for Federal Income Tax or Social Security tax or Medicare or Medicaid tax.  And if you state enacts a sales tax you are done with the burdensome filing of any income tax forms.  Your are NOW IN CONTROL.  If government makes the cost of products through regulations or other nonsense too expensive, you just stop buying them.  This will hit the economy and will be self regulating. 
6. Illegal aliens and drug dealers will now all pay taxes.  Right now, many of the illegal aliens steal SS numbers and claim 8 or 10 dependents.  This allows them to keep all of the money they make and still in many cases get to participate in free food, free health care and other tax payer funded programs.  With the Fair Tax every time they buy a loaf of bread or a six pack of beer, they will be paying the same tax as anyone else.  They will be less of a burden on the rest of us.  The same thing is true for all criminals.  No matter if they are selling drugs or fencing gold rings, the do NOT report the money they make.  But they all have to eat, buy clothing, etc.  They will now have to pay, like everyone else, at the retail register every time they purchase anything.
7. With the FAIR TAX we will be done with the charade played out in the Circus in Washington (which masquerades as our national government).  We will no longer be treated to the histrionics and hair pulling by the National Clowns about who is paying their “Fair Share” of taxes.  With the Fair Tax, taxes will be, well, Fair.  Everyone pays the same rate.  Think about what could be done with the money spent in congressional hearings and TV adds and campaign trips by Presidential jerks sowing the seeds of class warfare and envy talking about taxes. This alone should be enough to get any thinking person on board with the Fair Tax.  Its time has come.

Now Tom Cole and some others want to enact the so called “Flat Tax”.  A flat tax we are told is so simple that the form will be no larger than a post card.  And we have been told that it will provide the same tax rate for every individual and business in America.  Now again, think about this.  The original tax form used for the present system was only one page long.  The first 1040 form was only three pages long.  Do you really believe that politicians will NOT be working day and night to get the complications that hide the crooked dealings that they do back into this system?  They will get pressure from the special interest, who will agitate the Head Count to demand that they get more free stuff.   And they will get pressure from the rich to game the system so they can get a special credit or tax break.  California is the “Canary in the Coal Mine” for America in this regard.  They are a few years further down the path to economic collapse than the country.  They are in fact a state of, by and for the progressives loonies in America.

California just got the Head Count to agree to “Raise Taxes” on the evil rich through their proposition system.  So finally those evil rich movie producers are going to pay their “Fair Share” right.  Not so much.  The flaw in California’s progressive income tax system will be the same as that would reside in a Flat Tax.  Before the ink was dry on the new tax law, Jerry Brown signed a $200 million extension of a movie/TV Production Tax Credit.  The politically correct rich are NOT getting soaked.  The Flat Tax you see WILL have politically correct deductions in it as well.  And any of the clowns in the Circus we call the US Government can and will make deals with each other to get tax credits for their favorite campaign contributors.  With the Flat Tax, nothing changes.  And remember, with the Flat Tax, things they are promising you like “you will get to keep your home mortgage interest deductions” can, and will be done away with by the Clowns like Tom Cole.  All it will take is another manufactured debt or financial crisis and we will see the same clown act again and again.

No matter where you live, you need to let your Senator and Representative know how you feel about this Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s “stick it to the rich” scam.    And tell him you are FED UP with the current crooked Income Tax System.  Tell him to get on board with the Fair Tax. 

God Bless

JW Berry

We live in an era that when your printer runs out of ink, you throw it away and buy another because the ink is more expensive than the printer it comes with.

Most cars are an engine or transmission replacement away from being declared junk.  Such as the 2000 DeVille that I basically threw away because of a slipping transmission.  It simply becomes more expensive to fix the car than it is to find a replacement, even if you are doing your own work.

If the battery (screen, et al) in your cellphone goes bad, you toss it and get a new phone.

New desktop computers come with new power cords, keyboards, and mice, even though the existing ones might be perfectly fine.  The quantity of these items that IT departments throw away is shameful.

Working TV’s and computer monitors cost money to get rid of, rather than providing value for someone that would be happy to have it.

In order to stimulate new car sales, we destroyed tens of thousands of perfectly good vehicles, thus depriving someone that needs a good used car options, and driving up the price of used cars for everyone.  To wit, from about 2008-2011, in many cases it made more economic sense to buy a new car rather than a used one.  And, during my entire lifetime, if you needed to finance, it has always made sense to buy a new car rather than one that was less than 3 years old.

Practically nothing gets fixed any more.  Refrigerators, washers, dryers, TV, toasters.  When was the last time you had any appliance in your home repaired?  Name anything you currently own that you’d be willing to spend more than $100 (a pretty typical charge just to look at something) to have someone repair.  For me, the only thing in the house that qualifies is the TV I just purchased three weeks ago (and that is still under warranty).  Maybe I’m an oddball because most things I can take care of myself, but even my heat pump, now that it is 8 years old is one service call away from me getting it replaced.

I’m not an environmentalist, but I am an engineer – all this waste still bothers me.  How does the problem get fixed?  Some issues aren’t ever going to be taken care of.  Most people want that shiny new phone every two years.  However, with economic incentives, many of the now disposable items can be made repairable again.  I feel that the Fair Tax does this.

[The Fair Tax is a national sales tax on all NEW goods and services, replacing most currently collected federal taxes, including individual and corporate income taxes as well as social security and medicare]

Because of the reduced taxes on earnings, the Fair Tax could make it much less expensive to have things repaired that would normally get replaced.  How much less expensive?  Forty percent is a good starting point as the 13% SSI plus income tax would be roughly that amount.  Throw in corporate income tax and the real number is probably closer to 50%.

Because the tax is only collected on NEW goods, the cost of anything used would be 30% more expensive than something that was used.  This would make buying anything from used cars to toaster ovens make 30% more sense than before and result in many items that would have hit a landfill getting resold to someone else who can get more years of service out of it.   This further tips the balance from buy new to repair by adding 30% more to the purchase price of a new item.

Economic incentives matter.  You can’t just simply wish something to be the case, or even legislate it to be true – without creating a black market.  Currently, there is economic incentive to purchase new items often (but not always) made in other countries where the tax laws aren’t as punitive, rather than pay US wages and taxes to repair something that has already been manufactured.  This is wasteful and serves only to put still useful stuff into landfills.  Its tough to do anything about the wage aspect, and I doubt that doing so would even be desirable; however, the tax system can be fixed.   Changing this balance so that repairing makes more sense than replacing would be an environmental boon, and that is why the Fair Tax would be beneficial to the environment.

Y’all, let me tell you something, we were over the fiscal cliff 25 years ago — 30 years, 35 years. This country hasn’t paid anything on the National Debt in probably 50 years. It hasn’t cut spending. It hasn’t balanced a budget (Obama hasn’t even bothered to even submit a budget to Congress in 4 years now.) It just keeps growing & growing, increasing federal employees & entitlement programs & phoney spending cutbacks. Everybody knows it but nobody wants to admit it — hoping that their generation can “kick the problem” down the road to be handled by some future, smarter, magical generation.

And now, once again we come to the phoney line-in-the-sand point in history where the Obama administration & Congress try to appear as if they didn’t know that this latest “fiscal point in time” would come again before the end of 2012.

Give us a break!

Listen, if you’re waiting for some great compromise, you don’t have to wait much longer. Obama & the democrats aren’t about to cut taxes. They’ll insist on raising taxes. The Republicans will cave again – pretending to fight against big government & give-way programs – all in the interest of protecting the middle man. But it’s all a bunch of hooey! There’s no difference in these two parties. The only difference is “who’s in control (who has the power) at any moment in time.” All they know is how to keep on spending money!

“Could the United States default on its Debt?” We already are! The government couldn’t afford a pot to pi$$ in if we didn’t keep on printing dollars that aren’t worth anything. Because of bureaucracy and fraud and mismanagement that’s been going on for at least 50 years, we already are broke! Why not let the American people see reality for once? Answer — because politicians want to keep on being re-elected, that’s why.

We’ll survive – probably. We’ll survive returning to self-government and a self-sufficient society where people can work and achieve for themselves rather than depending on government.

It’s actually FUN being free. We should try it.

A Balanced Governmental “User Fee” Tax System
Also known as “Benefit Proportionate UseTax” (BPUT) System”

Informal description:  “Paying for the government you use…”

Abstract:

Taxation system based on a modest basic rate for everyone, then the addition of specific additional rates paid by industries using a standard that reflects the benefit to the private sector government investments  that enhance competitiveness.

Under a fair use system, the tax burden is  basically proportional to the benefits that the supports of government offer those businesses and individuals.  It is a tax system that finances basic functions of government progressively, and for any added benefit government has for the population or businesses, creates a system of tax contributions that reflect the government’s value to those business and individuals who most benefit from, for example, the any preferences or strategic initiatives in technology, research subsidy, education, or a global defense presence to protect social and trade interests.

Advantages

* Tax rates reflect the value that government provides to private industry and recognizes the uneven or targeted benefits of tax expenditures to various individuals, communities, and industries.

* Eliminates disparities and unequal distribution of the tax burden between those benefiting from government tax expenditures and those paying taxes.

* Allows the clear allocation of the burden of taxes collected for specific areas of government development and support, to those specific industries that benefit from those resources expended by the public.  These resources include public infrastructure, research and development, public works, health, education, and international policy initiatives and mutual defense. Other examples would be central banking, regulation of transparent markets, and intellectual property protection.

* Clarifies and delineates the industries and initiatives that are subsidized by tax expenditure, usually to insure their existence or a reasonable cost basis.  A recent example would be green technologies and non polluting electric automobiles.

* Clarifies and delineates the industries that are supported by tax financed infrastructure or other direct government benefit to enhance their sector’s competitiveness or additional development.

* Measures the value of public investment, and creates a transparent picture of the benefits and priorities of public investment in government and social infrastructure

.Introduction:

The system is transparent, and is easy to understand.  Beyond moderate and fair base rates, it is the adjustment of tax rates by taxing business and some individuals for a specific governmental value provided.  The advantage is that the general public and industry see exactly what they are getting for their money… a correspondent relationship that is too often obscured by the generalities and exceptions of the present complicated system.  The tax payment is wed to the government activity that is being paid for, and levies taxes proportionally on those that are receiving the benefits of those governmental investments.

A fair use or BPUT tax, would be based on everyone and all businesses paying for a general level of basic services, while different areas of business and society which benefit in enhanced ways from the protections, policies, or investments of government will pay a proportional fair share of those governmental activities that they are making money from.  While the tax system strives to be fair, at the very least the advantages to certain parts of the business environment due to the social, health, infrastructure, and technological investments of government tend to benefit some businesses, individuals, and communities more than others.

Under a fair use or BPUT system, everyone pays for what they essentially use, and more directly, pay for what they use if the government provides services or supports that enhance their business prospects or security, or technologically, educationally, or otherwise enhance the advance of private sector interests by industrial classification.

This provides a transparent and general set of categories that allow the American people and businesses to see exactly what they pay for with their taxes. It allows them to see and analyze the priorities of government of spending and the cost of things.

Revenue Generation, Innovation and Implementation Subsidization,

and Fair Market Value of Government Services

Versus

Lobby Driven Tax Expenditures and Exemptions

The government and the popularly elected legislature express their priorities for the society and economy by supporting and/or taxing different business and income generating activities.  These items in the past have been applied in a form of tax competition that took from or contributed to different business sectors and social causes.  Usually this is a disordered process based on political and not policy/planning influence.

A fair use system sets tax rates disparate form, in a form of that classifies the taxpayer, or taxpaying business, by activity or sources of income.  This classification and rate will be relative to the taxpayer’s or businesses proportionate share of those parts of government activity that benefit them more dramatically and directly contrasted with other sectors of the business and social environment.

Creating a tax system, that by category, asks for revenues based on a direct or indirect benefit to those paying the taxes makes it easy to see how money is spent, who benefits from those expenditures, and that the tax burden is responsive to a method that looks more like purchases made for products based on priorities and needs.  In other words, the taxpayers and those benefiting from the government’s services will pay proportionate to their actually benefit.  This will distribute the tax burden in a way that is fair to those that both use government resources, and do not benefit from many specialized use of government resources.

The benefits would include those activities that are profiting from government resource use, as in those that benefit from public domain research, transportation systems, or otherwise, like the State Department or military security would provide, and the efforts of the government that would result in profits and international security due to the protections or policy efforts of the government.

Categories of Subsidy, Support, and Neutral:

“Subsidized”

Under the tax system, a business is considered “subsidized” when the industry and the contributing/supporting (related) industries, do not pay for the government’s advantageous participation or support of that industry.  An example of this presently would be Amtrak, rural utilities or communications, or the solar energy industry where there is a special treatment due to the desirability of the service or institution.  This subsidy essentially allows the financial survival of those providing a service or product that is not profitable or is needed by the society for certain advantages that industry has in excess of a flat or equally applied tax rate.  Subsidized represents the likeliness that the industry will not prosper or continue without government assistance or special treatment.

“Subsidized” Tax Rates

Tax rates are zero for a “subsidized” business or industry and in fact may include payments and resources provided at no cost by the government.  Again, this represents the industrial or social elements that the government expressly wants to promote, develop, or keep viable, despite the immediate profitability of the industry at the time.

“Supported”

An industry is considered to be “supported” when their prosperity and development is not dependent on, though benefits from, the government’s advantageous participation or support of infrastructure. Examples would be national industries like those that benefit from aerospace development, medical and scientific research generates technology and patents, and infrastructure such as utilities, high speed internet access, and highways… as well as coordination of regulatory standards.  Other examples of this would be American corporations with foreign corporate businesses or offices, who operate with the security provided by military services or foreign services or State Department support.

Every industry will have a support calculation, based on its need or use of government benefits, infrastructure, or educational or government scientific development.

“Supported” Tax Rates

The tax rates for the government assistance or “support” of industries are on top of a minimum base rate that all corporations will pay, and is configured based on the industry’s use or likely use of areas of government supports, technologies, education, research, and infrastructure.

“Neutral”

Businesses that are “neutral” are neither deemed receiving a subsidized (free) benefit or are substantially supported by government infrastructure.  These entities are adequately taxed by the base tax rate so as to reflect their benefit from the activities of government.

….

Overview of the Tax Structure Under The Government User Fee Model or BPUT System

This tax system is a base rate in which all businesses support the social safety net, necessary social and medical services, education, homeland security, highway and utility infrastructure, the regulatory structure, and the operation of the government.  Beyond this, the excess expenditures of the government are tied to the benefits of those expenditures and the deliberate public policy and public good that the additional expenditures represent.

Simplicity Is Essential

It is important to note that, though it is possible to view the network of government impact, supports, and benefits as a very complicated mesh of constituent elements, that the tax categories remain simple and the formulas involved remain reasonably standardized.  The correspondent taxes and benefits should be easy to understand for the business or individual, and not prone to conditional or micromanaged adjustments.  It is essential this is true if the tax system is to be efficient and for any reform to represent an improvement.

Transparency of the Benefits of the Taxes Paid

There is a need to make obvious the direct benefit and the responsibility of a taxpaying entity to return heightened payments for heightened benefits in areas where the government explicitly benefits the private sector, region, or individual is a main feature of the perception of the fairness of the tax, and the sense that the money paid to the government is spent in a targeted and efficient way.

Individual Taxes

These tax rates would be lodged by state and by income distribution in a progressive system. States that require larger shares of federal programs or have federal infrastructure investments larger than other states would have a surcharged tax rate proportionate to their share of the benefit.  IE someone from Louisiana would pay a larger federal rate due to the benefit.  States like North Dakota, with relatively low needs, low population, and small infrastructure and federal benefit, would pay less individual taxes.  Individuals would not be allowed to use low tax states as “tax havens” and instead would both need to live and receive income from the state they live in.  Lower incomes would need to be taxed progressively, even though it would not proportionately distribute the benefit received from the government, with their value recouped as being parts of the income producing work force.

Investment Income

Investment income would pay rates that reflect the investment industry’s use of transparent and regulated financial environments.  There would be increased taxes for  investments that require leverage, to fund the safety net for any financial cataclysm caused by leverage and/or the lack of investment in real goods.

….

It is a useful suggestion perhaps, to have the expenses for the different areas, and the development of certain areas, be as directly transferred into the tax rate as possible, which would tend to make budgets balance and in effect, making the taxes more or less “zero sum”.  However, government expenses have the potential to create programs and expenses that are excessive or cannot be profitably supported by their constituent industries.  These would require other measures or expenditure limitations.  The other measures would include development funds in the base rate, or some larger rate to the whole to support the disproportionate expense.  The ideal is that taxes for certain government benefit will go directly back into the area of government that is providing the benefit.

Any excess could be applied to discretionary expenses and advanced development.

It is also suggested that the base tax rate be tied to some sort of fixed expensing formula, which allows expensing of investment, expansion, and reinvestment.  This would mean that non capital intensive industries would not have the ability to completely avoid paying their share of the support of the infrastructure

Many of these policies would have intended and unintended consequences that would need to be addressed to assure uniformity and fairness.  Ultimately, there would be a divergence for industries that had a large subsidization or were benefactors of major government programs or institutions.  Their tax expenses would influence their viability.  There would be a resulting “operating favoritism” for businesses that did not require major government efforts to be profitable or viable.   This would be balanced or adjusted for by industries that benefited by “innovation/infrastructure favoritism” which results in having large or windfall profits from technologies and infrastructures provided at no cost by the government.

Appendix 1

Example 3M Corporation
(this is only a posited example, and does not correspond to the structure and profits of the real company)

3M researches and manufactures useful products from patented materials.
3M’s business activities and profits would be divided up into 5 general areas.

Significant international operations, and manufacturing and applied materials research, small retail footprint and distribution.

1.  35% (Classified as International Trade and Manufacturing) its business is international manufacturing and product distribution

2. 25% (Classified as Domestic Advanced Manufacturing) is domestic advanced manufacturing and distribution

3.  30%  (Classified as Applied Materials)   is materials and applied materials research.

4.  10% (Chemical Manufacturing)  is chemical and chemical manufacturing

5.  5% (Classified as Low Volume Retail) is retailing of small amounts of consumer goods.

Tax Tables

Base rate 12%  (only an example, though is a number that is lower than the tax share of GDP that operates the government)

Effective Rates By Classification

1.  International Trade -  (Status: SUPPORTED)  Profits from the international division would be taxed at a rate of +5% percent of the base rate (IE 17%), and would go into the Department of Commerce, Department of State, The Department of Defense, and any other departments impacted, including any effect of the Department of Energy and EPA and the US Patent office and any research related departments.  Simply, the company is paying for the safety of its international presence and market regulation.  As well as the monitor of a sustainable environment for international energy and establishment of intellectual property standards.

2.  Domestic Advanced Manufacturing -  (Status: SUBSIDIZED) Profits for products produced domestically in advanced manufacturing facilities is taxed at -7%  less than the base rate, (5% net rate) due to it being as yet unprofitable or undeveloped, and is a desired category of economic development in the USA, supporting national self sufficiency and leadership in the world of advanced manufacturing.  This reduced tax rate is in addition to any loans, pilot or demonstration programs, and purchases made by the government.

3.  Applied Materials Research -  (Status: SUPPORTED)  Profits from products produced and work done will be taxed at +3% to pay for government research and government science efforts.  Excess of base rate would contribute to the increased used of National Science Foundation, Department of Education (workforce), Department of Energy, NASA, Patent Offices, Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, etc.

4.  Chemical Manufacturing – (Status: SUPPORTED)  Profits are taxed at base rate +5% due to support required for chemical cleanup, advanced government research and infrastructure, benefits going to Bureau of Standards, Patent Office, Energy Department Environmental Protection Agency, Health Department (environmental health impact), Education, etc.

5.  Low Volume Retail – (Status: NEUTRAL)  Low volume retail, is low impact on the infrastructure and is taxed at the base rate of 12% and simply passes untouched into the general government budget to fund an array of government services and infrastructure.

Note: Companies involved in “subsidized” industries would pay less taxes to encourage their development of innovation and initiatives.  Companies that are part of a “supported” industry would pay more taxes to pay directly for the direct benefit of the government preference and development.

Although it will be a relief to have this election over, we will not be done with the challenges that face America. The National Debt, and out of control Federal Spending that has caused it, must be faced. The ever growing, and largely unchecked, government must also be brought under control, and reminded that it does in fact work for the People.

I fully believe that the two party political system that we have allowed to develop in our Country is the root of most, if not all, of our problems. We see them taking money from the same donors, collaborating on the same issues, and ignoring their base constituents in favor of  what brings them the most power and financial gain.

I have decided that, rather than getting bogged down in the petty bickering and ghost issues that they would prefer we all spend our time on, I will focus my energies on two things that I feel will help make things better. Term Limits and the Fair Tax.

By seeking Term Limits for all elected Officials, we break the culture of power accumulation and move back towards public servants, who have real lives and job, and real issues. With Term Limits being a politician once again becomes a duty, not a profession. www.termlimits.org

The Federal Income Tax is a confusing maze of rules and regulations, that is all but impossible to navigate and which is most easily avoided by those who have the time and money to do so. The Fair Tax is a national consumption tax. It does away with the IRS and replaces the Income Tax with a flat consumption tax that everyone participates in. Its a better way to pay for the things that we have all decided that we want our Government to do. www.fairtax.org

These are my two. I challenge you to find two issues, not driven by a political party, that you can focus on to help make our communities and Country better. Change the process, take back the system, remove the bottle necks of power and help return our Country to the people. Don’t let yourself get caught up in the distractions, the things they want you to waste your time and energies on. Fix the stuff that threatens us all, then we can have a civil discussion about the differences we have.

• Repeal the income tax in favor of the Fair Tax or national sales tax
• Legalizing marijuana would eliminate much of the violence on the US-Mexico border and save us millions in fighting the war on drugs
• Abortion legal up until viability of the fetus; abortion is a state’s rights issue
• Cut the federal budget 43% all across the board
• School vouchers creates competition between public and private schools; allow the parents to decide what’s right for their kids
• Legalize gay marriage
• Cut medicare and medicaid by 43% and block grant those programs to the states with no strings attached on how each state should spend their money
• Potential immigrants should be issued a social security card which would allow them to pay taxes
• Raise the retirement age to 70 or 72
• Any attacks on Israel is not necessarily an attack on the United States; support our allies and allow them to act in their own interests

Rating for candidate: 10/10

Analysis: Israel was the only issue that I thought I disagreed with Governor Johnson on but I certainly liked the answer he gave that was presented in the policymic.com article so I don’t think there are any more potential disagreements between us.

Walter Jones (US Representative, North Carolina, 3rd District)

• Voted yes on 2009 stimulus package
• Yes on prohibiting medical marijuana in DC
• No on enforcing limits on CO2 emissions
• Yes to $9.7B improvements to Amtrak thru 2013
• Voted no on Ryan budget
• End draft registration; all-volunteer forces
• Extend unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks
• Abolish the IRS; replace income tax with national sales tax
• Remove troops from Afghanistan
• Ban troops in Libya without Congressional approval

Rating for candidate: 8/10

Analysis: I agree with Congressman Jones on most every issue with exception of gay rights and his stances on drugs.  He voted yes on banning gay adoptions in DC and yes on prohibiting medical marijuana in DC.  Why?  Neither issue would have remotely any affect on my life so why should I care what other people want to do with their life?

Tim Johnson (Former US Representative, Illinois, 15th District)

• Yes to supporting a balanced budget amendment with a 3/5 roll call vote to increase debt limit
• Marriage is one man, one woman; yes on creating a Constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage
• No on enforcing CO2 emissions
• No to making the Patriot Act permanent
• Yes on the Ryan budget
• Set a goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025
• Yes on building a fence across the Mexican border

Rating for candidate: 6/10

Analysis: I really don’t know much about him but he did endorse Ron Paul and that’s good enough for me to consider him a Liberty candidate.

Mike Lee (US Senator, Utah)

• Give states power to protect life
• Balanced budget amendment with supermajority to circumvent; Mike Lee favors a 2/3 requirement
• End the Federal Reserve
• No mosque on Ground Zero
• No gays in military
• No federal role in education
• US abroad is unconstitutional and unaffordable
• Protect Israel, our strongest ally in the region from hostiles
• No on extending the Patriot Act’s roving wiretaps
• Strong anti-amnesty; repeal the 14th amendment; no anchor babies

Rating for candidate: 6/10

Analysis: We agree on foreign policy for the most part and civil liberties but I still don’t understand this automatic obligation to protect and fund Israel when Netanyahu said himself that they can defend themselves.  And immigrants are just looking for opportunity.  I really don’t see what the big deal is about foreigners wanting to come here to live.  Can you imagine if Indians had that type of mentality? The Europeans would’ve been massacred or taken prisoner as soon as they got of the boat.  Also, he did endorse Mitt Romney so it would take a little while for him to gain my trust.

Bill Sali (Former US Representative, Idaho, 1st District)

• Voted no on bailout of GM and Chrysler
• Amend the Constitution to define traditional marriage
• Parental choice in education (vouchers)
• Declare English official language
• Extend unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks
• No congressional oversight over CIA interrogations

Rating for candidate: 6/10

Analysis: Another candidate I don’t know much about but who endorsed Ron Paul.  I kind of like the idea of making English the official language of this country.  It seems like an obvious thing to do being that a person would probably miss out on a lot of employment opportunities without knowing English. But there needs to be oversight of everything the CIA does.  Everything the CIA does is done in secret and I don’t like secrets.  I feel like I deserve to know everything the government is up to because that’s where my tax money is going.

Barry Goldwater Jr (Former US Representative, California, 20th District)

• Against infringement of privacy
• Against high taxes
• Opposed to being the policeman of the world
• Supports a strong national defense

Rating for candidate: 7/10

Analysis: He’s not likely to run because he’s been out of politics for a long time and is on record saying that more young people should start to take over in politics.  Seems like a man Ron Paul supporters would love and there’s certainly nothing wrong with having views that coincide with Ron Paul!  I rate him a little lower simply because of the unknown, that’s all.

Will any of these candidates get a fair shot if they were to run?  Some yes, some no.  For some it would be practically impossible to simply ignore because of the following for some of them would be too large so the media would at least have to pretend to give these candidates a fair chance and then there are others that will be depicted as too outside the mainstream to have a legitimate chance but in all it’s a pretty solid group of guys — all of whom would be much better than who we have leading the country right now.

What do you think of the candidates I have proposed in this blog and who are some others that would be worthy of running for President under the Liberty platform?  I know there are more.  I just figured eleven candidates and over 2000 words describing them was enough.

     The New Jersey state motto is “Liberty and Prosperity.” Unfortunately I haven’t seen much of that around, with New Jersey’s unemployment rate just above 9.8%. Now for the last year we’ve seen two men bicker and tout the promise of “change.” Am I the only person not buying this? When you look at the economic policies (or lack thereof) of the two primary Presidential candidates there is no change in sight. Is our only choice a President who claims they will deliver a balanced budged 8-10 years down the road? (which is after they’ve left office) Can we really afford a decade more of deficits? Hint: the answer is no.

     Three years ago we elected a man into the office of Governor who was not afraid to say “no.” No to more spending, no to raising taxes, no to nonsense. On the Presidential ballot, we have something even better. A candidate who recognizes that one of the most crucial ways to eliminate 16+ trillion dollars of debt is through a radical change in our fiscal policy, specifically the tax code.

     Would it not be the feat of our decade to eliminate the income tax? Governor Christie himself said “You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money.” And I’ll be damned if he’s not correct. Through the fair tax, all taxes would be collected on purchases only. All of the money you earned in your paycheck would be paid directly to you. On top of that, you alone control how much money in taxes you pay. The fair tax is not biased to your income level or economic status. This is the best plan to come from economist think tanks yet and there is only one candidate on the ballot this November who advocates this new tax system.

     A political party must garner at least 5% of the popular vote to receive equal ballot access. 5% of the popular vote will give us more choices as to whom will represent and lead our nation. If you want a true economic turn around, vote for the person who has a legitimate plan. Your vote creates that 5%, and politics based on principle turns that 5% into a majority.

Vote Libertarian.

Vote for Gary Johnson.

In light of the supposed differences between the Democratic and Republican platforms this might seem odd. At second glance, though, it is not hard to see why neither candidate has succeeded in galvanizing into action the kind of crowd Ron Paul did, for instance. Obama’s support and charisma have suffered under broken campaign promises and the continuation of essentially the same policies that made George W. Bush one of the most unpopular presidents in recent history. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, never had much charisma to begin with and fails to offer a real alternative to the aforementioned policies.

The presidential debate on foreign policy was just one of many occasions where this became glaringly obvious even to the most uninformed spectator. The candidates agreed on the intervention in Libya and regime change in Syria, they agreed on crippling economic sanctions on Iran, they agreed on the use of drones, they agreed on supporting Israel, they agreed on keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan for at least another two years; they even went as far as to use almost the exact same words during the “debate”.

Healthcare is another issue where one would be hard pressed to find any real difference between the two major candidates. Rather than simply repealing ObamaCare, as Romney said he would do last July, Romney wants to replace it with his own version of socialized healthcare as implemented during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, dubbed RomneyCare. This would include the controversial individual mandate, subsidies for those with low incomes, an expansion of Medicaid and penalties for employers who do not offer coverage to their employees. Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare result in soaring premiums, expansion of the powers of government to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship and higher unemployment due to rising costs for employers. Here, too, the proposed policies are virtually identical.

So how about the economy? A recent FOX News poll revealed that 41 percent of Americans named rising prices as being the biggest economic problem they face. Moreover, the Federal Reserve’s announcement of more money printing in the form of QE3 – the purchase of $40 billion worth of bonds every single month for an indefinite period of time – will contribute to an even bigger spike in prices. With Democrats applauding QE3 and Republicans saying it displayed the failure of the economic policies of the Obama administration, not a word was said about its impact on already soaring prices. In addition, given Romney’s reputation as a flip-flopper, it can be quite a challenge to figure out exactly what Mitt Romney stands for when it comes to monetary policy and bailouts. At any rate, both candidates are simply ignoring the $16 trillion debt, arguably the most serious threat now facing the largest debtor nation in the history of the planet.

Fortunately for those who see through the lies and deceit of the two main contenders, there is a candidate who wants to bring the troops home. A candidate who does not want government controlled healthcare. A candidate who would balance the budget in 2013 by cutting the size of government and supporting free markets. A candidate with more executive governmental experience than Romney and Obama combined. His name? Gary Johnson, former two-term governor of New Mexico and the Libertarian candidate for president.

Gary Johnson wants to stop making enemies faster than the military can kill them by starting another war. The former governor wants to audit and reform the Federal Reserve – whose stock is owned by private stockholders and has control over the nation’s money and credit resources[1] – to regain control over economic policy. He would abolish the income tax, corporate taxes, withholding and other levies that penalize productivity in favor of the Fair Tax which is a consumption tax. He is against the overreaching federal involvement in the economy in the form of bailouts, corporate welfare, cap-and-trade, education spending and protectionism. He wants to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana and simplify legal immigration to combat illegal immigration. He believes in civil liberties and opposes the Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act, which enables the government to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process. He would end subsidies and incentives for “green” energy that promote unfair competition and inefficiency in the energy sector.

So if you are one of many Americans out there who is sick and tired of the status quo, if you want a real alternative, vote your conscience: vote Gary Johnson!

I totally disagree with Shelby Frederick’s Sept. 28 letter supporting minimum wage increases. Empirical data show minimum wages increase unemployment. The ripple effect of this includes an increasing dependency on government, decreased economic growth, decrease in tax revenues and increase in government debt.

Free-market capitalism is what made the United States the great economic power and envy of the world. Let our market economy work out prices and wages naturally.

There is another solution for those whose skills at present do not match a salary level at least up to the poverty level. This solution is a major aspect of the “Fair Tax,” in Congress as HR25.

This bill provides all with “prebates” up to the poverty level to offset its key measure, which is a revenue-neutral consumption tax replacing our current tax system. It replaces all current personal and corporate federal income and payroll taxes. It is progressive because of the prebates.

The fair tax bill also eliminates almost $1 trillion in wasteful tax breaks, which likely decrease our economic growth. The fair tax rewards success — income — thus generating stronger economic growth and more opportunities for all. I encourage all to research the Fair Tax further at www.fairtax.org.

Follow me on Twitter @Economics501

Personally after seeing Mitt Romney and Barack Obama debate last week I’m not convinced either one of them want to cut a dime anywhere and much less on taxes.  Oh excuse me, one of them apparently wants to cut funding to PBS, so clearly they showed me…

Has anyone in mainstream politics ever considered just making taxes simpler so that even a 5th grader could understand it instead of a system so esoteric that rich people hire accountants to find loopholes so they won’t have to pay as many taxes.  And isn’t it more logical that people are taxed based on goods or services a person buys or consumes rather than what a person works hard to earn?  I’ve never understood this automatic obligation to pay the federal government for hours you worked.  Any other time if a person takes a portion of your paycheck every time you get paid you would likely think this person is either a thief, a bully, or a moocher.  And I have a serious problem with the government using force to take money from people that they didn’t rightfully earn themselves.  To me, this is socialism and has to stop. People will say, “Yeah but how will we pay for defense and education if we eliminate the income tax?” It’s almost as if people are so used to having a portion of their checks taken away from them by the federal government that they begin to rationalize the thievery as just the way it is and will always be.

And as much money as the federal government prints I would think they could just give free money to everyone and pay whatever is needed for social programs with that money.  Of course inflation would sky rocket and trees would suffer and some of this country’s lazy people who sit around doing nothing would never have any incentive to get a job and do anything useful with their lives but at least those people will be content which is all that matters, right?

If you haven’t already guessed by the graphic up above I’m advocating for eliminating the income tax in favor of the fair tax which is a national sales tax on goods and services purchased by consumers.  This seems to be the logical way to go as at least this way the people can decide how much tax money he or she want to pay into the revenue stream instead of having the government decide.  This is what happens when you have a system based on individual responsibility instead of what your wage happens to be.

While the fair tax would no doubt be much simpler than the current tax system and would allow the consumer to decide how much money they would like to pump into the system, there are some cons that I read about recently that I would like to address:

1) While the IRS probably would be done away with and/or dramatically reduced this isn’t necessarily a bad thing as it’ll become much harder to cheat on paying taxes in a system such as this one.  And the people who do lose their jobs because of the fair tax would likely find a job elsewhere as the fair tax would eliminate the corporate taxes which gives businesses more money to hire more workers and with those new workers brings more revenue from expenditures on goods and services.  Not to mention, would anyone actually miss the IRS with exception of the individuals currently employed there?

2) I don’t pretend to know what the national sales tax would need to be to meet the needs of social programs, the military, and social security but I do have a strong feeling that it is not over 30% and probably not less than 20%.  It should be a transparent tax and while the author in the link above depicts transparency as a bad thing in this situation, I would argue that while goods and services are more expensive under the fair tax, considering these individuals would have 10% more on their paychecks I really don’t think people are going to notice a major difference in how much money they have left over after paying bills, for groceries, etc.  If anything those people would probably have a little more money left over for things they want instead of having just enough for the necessities.  Where the fair tax might hurt poorer Americans would be on more expensive items such as cars and houses but perhaps a system like this would cause people to become more wary of how much money they actually spend and if not these people might want to move into big cities and take advantage of public transportation.

3) Even the author readily admits more people saving money and getting themselves out of debt is a good thing in the long run for this country.

4) I honestly don’t know how the fair tax would affect entitlement spending for the poor.  I do know that most poor people don’t want to have things just given to them, they’re just looking for opportunities and perhaps with the fair tax being implemented and the corporate tax being eliminated maybe that’s just the opportunity that the poor have been looking for as employers will be able to hire more workers.

5) The potential for tax fraud is always there but then again I sincerely doubt it would be quite as easy or frequent for it to happen with the fair tax.

The biggest concern that seniors would have in having the fair tax would be that they’ve already paid into the system so it’s basically like they’re not getting a break.  However, according to fairtax.org, under the fair tax, seniors at or below the poverty level will be given a monthly prebate that will help seniors in paying for essential goods and services.  Not to mention that the fair tax does not put a tax on used items.

Is the fair tax a perfect system?  No, but I would much prefer a system where consumers have more control on how many taxes they actually pay as I have always been an advocate for personal responsibility and for the government  staying out of my business.  So in that sense I would consider the fair tax to be a positive step in the right direction.

Welcome to the third installment of non-partisan, educational reviews of the Presidential Candidates. As you may recall, the last two posts were about Mitt Romney and President Barak Obama. Many people at this point are now saying,

“Who else is there?”

While the United States is a two-party system, there are a several candidates running for President of the United States including: Peta Lindsay: Socialist Party, Tom Hoefling: America’s Party, Virigil Goode: Constitutional Party, and Tom Stevens: Objectivist Party. Unfortunately, I can’t cover all these candidates but I will be giving due attention to Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party as they are the most well-known of the independent parties.

A Green Party: Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala 

So I am sure that many of you may be asking “What’s the Green Party?” The Green Party doesn’t solely focus on environmentalism, but it is a big chunk of their platform. Another plank that usually goes unnoticed is their commitment to not relying on corporate donors to thrive, they rely on communities and grassroots organizing. You can read about them at http://www.gp.org 

On to Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala! Jill Stein is running for President with her mate, Cheri. Dr. Jill Stein is a doctor of internal medicine and has written books about the effects of toxins on child development. During her time as a civiliian, she spent many hours testifying in courts, panels, news broadcast, congress and other legislative bodies only to be squashed out by “big money”. It was her own experiences watching large wealth take control over people’s health and well-being that prompted her bid for President.

The biggest part of the Stein/Honkala ticket is what they’ve named “The Green New Deal”. It’s quite long but you can read summary of the Deal that is broken down intro four parts: Economic Rights, Green Transition, Financial Reform, and a Functional Democracy.

I am going to shorten them even further for reading ease.

Economic Bill of Rights: Guaranteeing jobs through new “employment offices” (which sound a lot like the offices that already exist), allowing unions to form, and forgiving student loan debt from an “era of unforeseeable education”. End foreclosures by creating a new, separate baking system that help restructure mortgages  financing and ensure home ownership.

Green Transition: Investing in Green Energy, subsidizing programs to make green tech more affordable, transitioning to green jobs and outrun oil energy.

Financial Reform: Reducing student/homeowner debt, Federal control over the banks, end bail-outs, put a 90% tax on bailed out banks, and transition to non-profit banks (meaning no one gets rich from owning a bank).

A Functioning Democracy (their words, not mine): Constitutional amendment denying money as speech and corporations as people, enacting the Voter Bill of Rights which includes abolishing the electoral college, non-partisan oversight, making Election Day a National Holiday, same day registration and voting, and statehood for DC. Repeal the Patriot Act, reducing military spending by 50%, ending “secure communities” programs/ the “War on Immigrants”.

Even though I didn’t go into huge detail, there isn’t much detail to go in. Most likely, these are idealistic policies at best. There is no plan the indicates how to transition to green energy thus lacking in the ability to determine how to protect oil sector employees. There is no plan that demonstrates how to reduce homeowner and student debt. 

The plans that the Green Party would like to repeal are fairly similar to other third parties and not hard to explain. It is clear that for these candidates, there isn’t much practical substance but make great philosophical points. Throughout all of Stein/Honkala’s website, they both make great strides in promoting a shift in mindset behind policy making, which is commendable. It can be argued that for most third parties, it’s more important to utilize awareness of how policies should change than gaining the vote. Most previous third party candidates admit they run so with each election cycle, the party get’s a little bigger and a little more momentum towards an eventual goal of being competitive with the GOP and the Democrats. 

Overall, Stein and Honkala have a very progressive platform, filled with new ideas and things very different from mainstream politicians. However, it lacks enough substance to encourage voters to shift parties. I think their future is bright.

The Libertarian Party: Gary Johnson and Jim Gray

This party is probably more familiar than the Green Party because of the Wisconsin election earlier this spring. Furthermore, during 2008, Ron Paul (former Republican Presidential Candidate) ran as a Libertarian advocate. So let’s find out a little bit more about these guys!

Gary Johnson was born in North Dakota but moved to New Mexico shortly after.  During his time as a civilian, he started his own company “Big J Enterprises” which did mechanical contracting. By the time he sold the company in 1999, it was New Mexico’s leading construction company. He served two terms as Governor of New Mexico during the late 90s and is attributed with vetoing the most amount of bills, shrinking government employees and leaving with a surplus budget. While in 2000, he denied being a member of the Libertarian Party, by 2008 he became and active member with the libertarian party.

James P. Gray (Jim) was born in DC and raised in LA. After his undergraduate career, he taught for the Peace Corp in Costa Rica. When he returned, he earned his law degree where he spent a majority of his career on drug cases. in 1989, he served on Orange County’s Superior Court.  He spend most of his activism educating people about why drug laws should be changed to be less strict as well as published several books on the issue.  After a small Facebook referendum, Gray was nominated as Johnson’s running mate and he accepted the offer at the National Convention. 

Allright. Now we know something about the candidates. What do they want to do?

The Gary Johnson website has plenty of issues to look at but I’m going to narrow it down to the same few I’ve written about with the other two candidates. 

Economy/Taxes/Deficit: Revise welfare programs (medicaid, medicare, etc), eliminate interventionist military spending (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq) and no spending on stimulus, transportation, energy, housing and other special interests. Abolish the IRS and establish the Fair Tax (which is basically a high national consumption tax instead of income/payroll/estate taxes). Eliminate bail outs and regulations, eliminate public schools and legalize/regulate marijuana for profit.

Civil Liberties: Repeal the Patriot Act, eliminate TSA’s monopoly on airports, abortion up until the viability of the fetus, stem cell research supported but private (no federal funding), gay marriage, religious rights to practice.

 Foreign Policy: Remove troops from most abroad locations, like Europe, no criminal/terrorist (foreign) should be tortured, prisoners are allowed due process with military tribunals and just compensation for wrongful incarceration. 

You may think these last two parts are lacking a lot of detail. It’s because they have none. Out of all of the Johnson/Gray platform, the most detailed is the Economy selection.  Let’s talk about the Fair Tax. People talk about it a lot because like the name, it seems fair. So instead of us all paying taxes through out the year based on what we earn – we would all pay a sales tax (there are variants to how each person wants to implement this plan). Now, as we all know, taxes are what makes the government work, Many critics say that this system won’t work because the amount of tax we’d have to put on consumption to support the government would be way too high for people to spend. So for example, a sales tax of 20% across the board could really increase the bill on shopping. Additionally  there is concern that people won’t want to spend. Or if they do want to spend, it increases over consumption which makes resource “warners” concerned about replenishment of natural resources where we get all of our “stuff”. 

On the reverse though, for Johnson/Grey specifically, they would say that because of how greatly the government would be shrunk, the tax could be lower because the government wouldn’t be so “inflated” thus allowing people a lower tax and an increased freedom in spending. In the Johnson/Grey world where they eliminate all the spending and regulations they have outline, a fair tax may work. However, in the current system, the amount of consumption tax imposed would be too high for the average american to feel comfortable with; even with the increased income.

Overall, Johnson/Grey is a deconstructionist campaign. Many people are fans of the duo because of their radical beliefs in changing the way our government utilize taxes and the track record of political success that Johnson had in New Mexico. The team has a fairly large following, predominately on college campuses and are favorable with very young voters.

Third Parties are of great interest to many undecided voters. Many, many voters get tired of the rift between the Republicans and Democrats and often find themselves looking at some of these candidates. For this particular election, there is enough discontent with both candidates to give a little push to all four of these candidates. Many say that third parties do nothing but steal votes from the main two, but it’s probably good to have more options that just Red and Blue. It’s unclear if these parties will stay and grow or if they will fizzle out like their predecessors (remember the Bull Moose Party?). For the time being though, they are great alternatives and present very progressive thinking, something new for voters to consider.

Next Time: Political Puzzle, Part IV – Summary

sources:

http://reason.com/archives/2001/01/01/americas-most-dangerous-politi/singlepage

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/6/maverick-nm-politician-always-on-trail/

http://www.jillstein.org/

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100107stein_to_jump_into_gov_race_with_green-rainbow_bid/srvc=home&position=recent

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/zRetailing?c111:H.R.25:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15593

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy

Empirical data proves minimum wages increase unemployment.  The ripple effect of this includes an increasing dependency on government, decreased economic growth, decrease in tax revenues, and increase in government debt. Free market capitalism is what made the US the great economic power and envy of the world.  Let our market economy work out prices and wages naturally.

There is another solution for those whose skills at present do not match a salary level at least up to the poverty level.  This solution is a major aspect of the Fair Tax (in Congress as HR 25).  The Fair Tax provides all with income up to the poverty level to offset its key measure which is consumption tax replacing our current tax system.  The Fair Tax replaces all personal and corporate federal income and payroll taxes with a revenue neutral consumption tax.  It is progressive because of its prebates to all up to the poverty level.  The Fair Tax also eliminates wasteful almost $1 trillion tax breaks which likely decrease our economic growth. The Fair Tax can be set up to fully fund all core entitlements plus more. The Fair Tax eliminates the IRS and $430 billion annual compliance.  Use that to pay down our debt.  Yes – technology exists where an IRS is no longer required.  The Fair Tax rewards success (income) and encourages more of this, thus generating stronger economic growth and more opportunities for all.  I encourage all to research the Fair Tax further in www.fairtax.org.

For those who

This is in response to Ronald Sobieraz letter against the Fair Tax.  The Fair Tax resolves some extreme problems with our current system.  At present our tax code requires $30 dollars of compliance and admin costs for every $100 collected in revenue from individual taxpayers.  Also almost $1 trillion of dubious at best tax breaks are rendered now that likely detract from GDP.  Finally the current tax code punishes success (income).  This depresses true GDP potential.

The Fair Tax eliminates these wasteful $1 trillion tax breaks. It can be set up to fully fund all core entitlements plus more. The elimination of $430 billion annual compliance costs further helps in this regard.  The Fair Tax rewards success (income) and encourages more of this, thus generating stronger economic growth.  It replaces all personal and corporate federal income and payroll taxes with a consumption tax.  It is progressive via prebates to all up to the poverty level.

It takes time and effort and careful analysis to truly appreciate a major change to our archaic tax code.  I encourage all to research the Fair Tax further in http://www.fairtax.org.