You are part of the solution if you are a productive, law abiding individual.

I cannot agree with the Chinese policy thing because it is a violation of individual rights. The simple fact is that these people will always exist. They will only grow into uncontrollable numbers through welfare.

The "tit" is a tough thing to let go. :D

Ain't that the truth. :)[/b][/quote]
Watch it you two - don't make me fire you! :awinky:

I do have to say I've been keeping up with this thread and am torn - It will be interesting to see how this all pans out... I think I'd be in favour of a national sales tax that wasn't like 50% - something lower - more like 10 or 15% - and an abolishment of ALL other forms of federal income taxation.

Well to be honest, I must retract one of my statements.

Freeport, Bahamas has no income tax at all. As far as I know they work entirely off other industries such as banking and gambling, and no doubt criminal activities. The head of their business development department told me stuff was somewhat more expensive to buy there (sales tax or just due to import regulations I don't know) but Miami was just a 30 minute plane ride away, and you could bring back up to thousands worth of US goods with no additional tarriffs.

Aside from the hurricanes it sounds perfect, wig and I have put a down payment on a mule ranch inland a bit from the port.

C.

I wonder HOW much more expensive things are - after all, if you're NOT paying 35% of you income in taxes, it wouldn't hurt so much to pay 15% more for things you buy :P

Now that rather pisses me off. I wonder how long they'll be able to sustain no income taxes if their people aren't supporting the economy. :angry:

I'd also be willing to bet that a lot of the money to run the country (or whatever Freeport is...is it a country?!?) comes from tourists and large fees from cruise ships docking there. I haven't been to Freeport in 20+ years - loved it then, bet it's changed :(

Hey, I don't propose to have the exact answer and I am certainly more concerned about how to position myself for events than I am about changing them.

However, if I had my way I would try this.

I would abolish the IRS and insitute a fair tax that could not be used by politicians to pander (on either side)

I would increase new investment with tax breaks for businesses, enact higher limits on retirement accounts and increase the amount of capital losses that can be deducted from income taxes.

I would legalize drugs and put all the money wasted there into education and treatment. I would also change up Education, but that is another topic.

I would release all the non-violent criminals (drug offenders) from jail to make room for the real criminals and I would keep them there.

I would enforce the laws.

I would institute a loser pays legal system.

I would make people be accountable for their actions.

I would eliminate welfare gradually, which would help with the above.

I would repeal all the gun laws, as they only affect the law abiding citizen.

And, where gov't control or action was needed, I would reserve this to the States where at least there would be some competition. In other words, pass a stupid law and watch business and productivity goes to another State.


Anyway, that just a start.

I also think one has to be willing to accept that there will still be people who are downtrodden and that no answer exists where there won't be.

And now I find myself VOTING FOR WIG! :awinky:

Does that mean I still have a job? :D :D

I doubt he would want the pay cut and hassles. :D

Doesn't look too bad (I mean it's vague but so is anything political) other than the guns, but as Howard Dean puts it, we need to leave that to the states. What works for NY won't work in NH.

I do think that if done properly, we CAN provide universal health care in this country. Even it it's not on the income tax system, even if it's sales tax or the money we save by holding insurance companies more accountable, or whatever!

On many issues I find myself agreeing that we need to leave it up to the states. That's what they originally wanted, which is why they forced the Bill of Rights rather than just signing the constitution. National issues for me are health care, the environment, law enforcement and homeland security, defense, the treasury, and any cross-jurisdictional type stuff. Maybe drug enforcement. It'll be hard to seperate the states from the US gov't especially now, after all the same lawmakers who would have to repeal these laws are the ones who love having all this power.

But if we put things that really DO vary by state in the hands of the states, such as gun control, I think the people will be better represented. Does this mean you'll vote for Howard Dean wig? Since he wants to decentralize a lot of current policy and give it to the states? :awinky:

He's a Bill Bradley candidate, but the world needs dreamers I guess! I like Dean better than Nader at this point. I agree with JR that some rabid environmentalists can do more harm than good on a national stage; there is a difference between drawing educated opinions and putting blinders on.

C.

Cal, in the end, I think that this is the most telling point. No matter what ideas are proposed, if they involve what you said above it is a moot point because they will not be utilized -- even if they may hold the best solution.

It is hard not to comment on or debate the issues we discuss, but I personally direct most of my resources towards anticipating the most probable outcome and taking advantage of whatever comes.

I certainly do not expect to change anyones mind. It's just fun to debate it sometimes. And, of course, I couldn't disagree with you more about universal health care. I only wish Oregon would have passed their attempt so we could see what would have happened.

Like I have said many times, I am all for trying anyones ideas at the State level because the market forces will prevail. I can live with that.

:D

I may have misunderstood, but wasn't Oregon's proposal what would have amounted to a very large group plan? From what I heard, it wasn't free, and it wasn't funded by the government, but it would have allowed for more even insurance costs, i.e. just because you have $$, doesn't mean you should have to pay more for insurance. My rates just went up (AGAIN!) and I'm now paying over $400 a month for myself and the kid. I would LOVE to be able to get a "group" rate and I THOUGHT that's what the Oregon proposal was.

In addition I thought it would allow people that are currently unable to get insurance to be able to obtain it (for example, a friend of mine with pre-existing conditions is getting ready to have his COBRA expire - he CANNOT find another carrier to cover him..........).

Am I missing the boat on this?

Yep, the boat sailed, you missed it. ;)

The Oregon bill was another tax the rich scheme. I wish it would have passed. Every critically ill patient in the US would have been flocking there while the people paying the bills would have been leaving.

http://www.healthcareforalloregon.org/summary.htm

Ah, thanks for the link - see what happens when you just catch bits and pieces of information? :o

OK, well, then would MY plan work? :)

Wig for President!

I am officially opting out of this topic, and allowing Wig to speak on my behalf. I have yet to disagree with any statements he has made on this thread.

Cal, I respect your opinion. You sound just like my brother, my best friend, and my dad. They are all idealists, and unrealistic in my opinion. A perfect world does not exist, we are forced to work with the one we have. Some people just aren't going to be as well off as others. We can't save everyone.

What's so idealistic about penalizing poor mothers with tons of kids? China does it, it must work! :zoinks:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/issues.htm#healthcare

Let the flames begin!

:rolleyes:

C.

Cal, I looked at this site and in the very first paragraph Dean states...

"President Bush and the GOP have essentially taken money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, money that is owed to the American people, and used it to finance tax cuts that hurt most Americans."

This guy is either naive or he is purposely deceiving people.

There is no money in the social security trust fund. There is only a computer entry (called book entry) which consists of treasury securities (mostly STRIPS -- zero coupon treasury bonds). It is a collection of Federal Gov't IOU's to themselves, which they count as money. It is nothing more than a massive ponzi scheme.

I prefer a candidate that understands this and is not afraid to air it. Otherwise, it is simply demagoguery.

You should have read the rest, that partisan stuff I knew would turn people off. But he's a politician, so what do you expect I guess.

It was always amazing how the media and economists professed that there WAS no social security trust, yet no politicians that I saw ever brought that to light. Some even campaigned on using it to bring down the debt! Insanity.

C.