• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

You can guarantee the passage of a bill about one issue: What is it?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Completely end the war on drugs retroactively, use the interstate commerce clause to invalidate all state laws pertaining to prohibition, release all non-violent drug offenders currently in jail, give the DEAs entire budget to forming drug treatment and real education programs, amend civil forfeiture law to make it illegal for any person or government agency to take property until conviction and all proceeds go to state or federal general funds respectively.... I'm sure I am forgetting a few provisions but that's a good basis.
 
Darwin333 said:
Completely end the war on drugs retroactively, use the interstate commerce clause to invalidate all state laws pertaining to prohibition, release all non-violent drug offenders currently in jail, give the DEAs entire budget to forming drug treatment and real education programs, amend civil forfeiture law to make it illegal for any person or government agency to take property until conviction and all proceeds go to state or federal general funds respectively.... I'm sure I am forgetting a few provisions but that's a good basis.
Click to expand...

...thinking...

...

:thumbsup:
 
Atomic Playboy said:
Comprehensive campaign finance reform that ends all political donations and requires all elections be 100% publicly funded. And, while we're at it, replacing the current "winner take all" system with a proportional representation system that would weaken the existing de facto two party system we currently have that has proven entirely useless. Bring more voices to the table and get the influence of big money out of politics and let everything else flow from there. I'd also toss in a measure that treats political corruption as tantamount to treason so elected officials don't so casually defraud their constituents, but that's a separate issue. We will never have a single measure of real change until we demolish the existing power structure that amounts to nothing more than an entrenched oligarchy operating solely for the benefit of the rich.
Click to expand...

Ooh, as much as I like mine I might like yours better...
 
Fixing the election process would be the most ideal overall. But getting rid of income tax and just implementing a sales tax on everything other than food bought in a grocery store, and the purchase of a primary residence sounds like a good idea to me. Obviously sales tax would have to be higher, but you only pay when you spend.
 
soulcougher73 said:
Fixing the election process would be the most ideal overall. But getting rid of income tax and just implementing a sales tax on everything other than food bought in a grocery store, and the purchase of a primary residence sounds like a good idea to me. Obviously sales tax would have to be higher, but you only pay when you spend.
Click to expand...

I can understand the argument against the fair tax; that the poor spend, as a percentage of their income, more than the rich do.

That's why I think all income, not spending necessarily, should be taxed identically.
 
Atreus21 said:
How would that increase homelessness and poverty?
Click to expand...

The poor would see a substantial decrease in the amount of money they have. Less money = more poverty, more homelessness, etc.

Unless you're planning on coupling this 'same percentage of your income' tax with a huge expansion of welfare, public housing, etc, etc, that is.
 
eskimospy said:
The poor would see a substantial decrease in the amount of money they have. Less money = more poverty, more homelessness, etc.

Unless you're planning on coupling this 'same percentage of your income' tax with a huge expansion of welfare, public housing, etc, etc, that is.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps we could try the negative income tax that Milton Friedman proposed to help such people.
 
eskimospy said:
Well then we're back to everyone not paying the same percentage, right?
Click to expand...

Only in the sense that we'd still need a safety net to protect the truly destitute.

Righting a perceived injustice ought not be the motive for taxation.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
How would that increase homelessness and poverty?
Click to expand...

That's easy.

If you are low income and you were paying relatively little in taxes you still had little disposable income. Now you not only lose that but you are hopelessly in debt.

That number would far exceed those who are so wealthy that they spend relatively little on what they need. If they pay a quarter of their income they might have to buy fewer upscale products, but they aren't going to be ruined.
 
Atreus21 said:
Only in the sense that we'd still need a safety net to protect the truly destitute.

Righting a perceived injustice ought not be the motive for taxation.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about injustice?

Under your plan you're still having wealthy people paying more than poor people. What this would really end up doing, by the way, is raising your own taxes significantly.

Take a look at the chart here:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data

Last year the top 5% of income earners paid nearly 70% of all federal income taxes. I'm guessing you aren't in the top 5%, so you're signing yourself up for a large tax increase. Maybe you're fine with that, but considering your antipathy towards higher taxes otherwise that seems hard to believe.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
Comprehensive campaign finance reform that ends all political donations and requires all elections be 100% publicly funded. And, while we're at it, replacing the current "winner take all" system with a proportional representation system that would weaken the existing de facto two party system we currently have that has proven entirely useless. Bring more voices to the table and get the influence of big money out of politics and let everything else flow from there. I'd also toss in a measure that treats political corruption as tantamount to treason so elected officials don't so casually defraud their constituents, but that's a separate issue. We will never have a single measure of real change until we demolish the existing power structure that amounts to nothing more than an entrenched oligarchy operating solely for the benefit of the rich.

Either that or casual Fridays. I feel like casual Fridays would be nice.
Click to expand...
fvcking THIS. Money is destroying this country's democratic facets.
 
Lobbying/unlimited campaign donations=outlawed.
Get caught? instant fired + 10 yrs Federal prison.
 
Last edited:
Blanky said:
fvcking THIS. Money is destroying this country's democratic facets.
Click to expand...

Who wants a democracy? The people who pay for the government should have the biggest say in its priorities. Why the fuck should the people who pay effectively no tax be able to completely run roughshod over those who do? If anything we ought to put our bicameral congress to work: one house should have complete control over foreign policy and military action and voted for only by the poor who would fight the wars. The other house should have domain over economics and voting for its members be proportional to taxes paid.
 
glenn1 said:
Who wants a democracy? The people who pay for the government should have the biggest say in its priorities. Why the fuck should the people who pay effectively no tax be able to completely run roughshod over those who do? If anything we ought to put our bicameral congress to work: one house should have complete control over foreign policy and military action and voted for only by the poor who would fight the wars. The other house should have domain over economics and voting for its members be proportional to taxes paid.
Click to expand...

hmmm.....


.......


.......


Nope we don't need an institutionalized oligarchy. Not sure why you hate the founding fathers and 200+ years of US history so much.
 
First thing I'd want to solve is global warming. To (begin to) solve it, I'd aim for a carbon tax. I'd replace the gasoline tax with it (so people get cheap gas), divert more money to infrastructure, and maybe return some of it to the people equally.
 
Atomic Playboy said:
To be fair, the founding fathers did institutionalize an oligarchy; only rich, white men were allowed to vote or hold office.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. All white men. There was no wealth or land requirement.

Me: Instant Run-off voting paired with all elections being funded through public money, without a media that treats it as a horserace and instead acts like a functioning press to provide accurate, factual information.

If Americans still want to vote for oligarchs to own and operate the country, at least they couldn't complain that learning how everything works is too hard.
 
brycejones said:
hmmm.....


.......


.......


Nope we don't need an institutionalized oligarchy. Not sure why you hate the founding fathers and 200+ years of US history so much.
Click to expand...

Some people dream of being free. He dreams of being a slave. He might think he'll be the master, but he'd really be saying "yes massa".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top