Sunday, May 07, 2017

A Modest Proposal

It sounds so lame when Democratic Congressmen whine that the proposed tax cut is a tax cut for the rich. 50 percent of the people in this country pay no Federal income tax. We can be pretty certain that the other 50 percent pays all of the taxes. 10 million cash in a bank, doesn’t raise the sort of tax money this “tax the rich” concept is selling. Figure 200k in interest nets about 40 thousand in taxes. Thousands of immigrants have made their money elsewhere in the world and have moved here to enjoy our freedom and their untaxed wealth, without the burden of paying taxes.

Giving the rich a tax break means less money for the largess of Congress. It is really immaterial if we give a tax break to the rich. We are already spending twice as much as we collect in taxes. The rich pay twice their share because the poor pay nothing. How about a voting law; you get as many votes as dollars paid in taxes. This would give the taxpayers a say in their government. You pay a million in taxes, you get one million votes. You pay nothing, you get one vote.

The rich could buy the election, but at least they would get a say on where their tax dollars are being spent. And it certainly isn’t free drinks for everyone. Our current voting system favors those who want to distribute free government benefits. Bernie had the right name for it, Socialism.


Anonymous said...

I hope you don't mind, but I couldn't resist the math on one vote per person idea:
There are ~326 million in the USA, and half of them pay no taxes, so at most 163 million would be eligable to vote their 1 vote.
Not everyone is eligible, however.
For those who are, not everyone will vote. If 60% of the people vote, that would be, at most 100 million votes.

It is legal to pay more in taxes than you owe, so any person can buy votes, at 1$ per vote.

So, for less than $100mil, a CEO (i.e.) any corporation could effectively counter (nullify) more than half the voters.
However, all that is needed is to control the margin of victory, so $10-20 million may be enough to nullify over half the population.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Anon

You're forgetting one thing, my wife and I would have 14,000 votes just paying our taxes. The only ones really eliminated from voting are those with no money in the game. The more the taxpayer paid in taxes, the greater the number of votes issued to him.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the reply. If you strip away the destracting details, i.e. dollars per vote, etc. , this idea at its core is: Poor people should not able to vote in their own democracy.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Anon

Instead of interpreting what I was saying as; "Poor people should not able to vote in their own democracy." Why not say "the people that pay the taxes should have the final say over how the money is spent." I personally think that being poor is no reason not to pay taxes. A month of government service in lieu of paying taxes is ok with me.

Government and government services are not free, when you don't have to pay for them, my bill is bigger because of you.

Joseph Oppenheim said...

The people who don't understand that nearly everyone living in the US pays taxes, whether directly via not just income, but excise taxes and government fees AND/OR indirectly by legally using or renting property belonging to others who pay taxes and/or government fees to own the property, shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Sorry about my failed attempt at satire. Johnathan Swift "Modest Proposal" was to fatten up starving kids and feed them to Irelands rich landholders.

Joseph is right when he mentions that a majority of people pay taxes indirectly.

IMHO many do a very good job of exercising their right to vote, but I get a little peeved at some who think the government exists to solve all of mankind's problems. You run out of money at some point.

Anonymous said...

"You run out of money at some point."

no you won't, you just print more. and before you say that debt can't be the answer, pleas think about things in a real way. the gold is money narrative has long been disproven. as i always say, what would you rather have, 5 billion in gold or a 5 billion dollar aircraft carrier that projects power. how much has the u.s. earned by defending countries like saudi arabia for 6 decades vs putting that money in fort knox as gold reserves.
the international economic model isn't as simple as it used to be. these days, even landfills are money! just think about all the atoms of elements we hold in landfills in the u.s.. soon, when energy becomes cheaper and technology better, we can dig up that treasure and turn it into wealth.

the u.s. has imported 80-90% of its needed natural resources for that pst few decades, that REAL wealth is in the states while the rest of the world holds an IOU, which one would you rather have, the REAL atoms of elements or the piece of paper with an IOU that is being devalued through inflation everyday?

we have to use our imagination and think bigger, wealth and money are no longer just gold and silver, there is so much more to wealth than what is stored in some vault somewhere.

cheers from l.a.

Jim in San Marcos said...

Hi Anon 2:43

You're right, but its a moot point.

If we take the absurdity of printing money to a higher level, why not issue everyone in the world one million dollars. No one needs to work because we are all rich.

There would be nothing for sale to buy with your wealth. At that point, it becomes evident that money in whatever form is a measure of product built but not consumed.

In an economy facing hyperinflation from government printing, the stores run out of product to sell.

The government won't run out of printed dollars, just stuff to buy with it.