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

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
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. ...
This! Very much this. I'd also like constitutional amendments stating that money is NOT speech protected by the First Amendment, and that constitutional rights are for actual, living people, and not guaranteed for organizations.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
This! Very much this. I'd also like constitutional amendments stating that money is NOT speech protected by the First Amendment, and that constitutional rights are for actual, living people, and not guaranteed for organizations.

Getting money out of politics would easily fix 90% of the problems we have. You can look to Canada and see the difference it makes. They don't make laws just for the sake of throwing otherwise innocent people in jail. They don't have private prisons and prison guard unions donating millions of dollars to politicians. Canada's PM would be considered "poor" by US standards; he's not your typical Bush/Romney/Clinton billionaire. Canada also has more sensible gun laws - you can get a gun as long as you ask for one and take a test, just like a car, but most people don't bother. Canada is far from perfect, but I have lot more faith in their way of doing things.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
Tax reform on income, profits and making money.

1) Ditch the corporate sweetheart tax breaks. Also, no more corporate welfare. Especially for companies that pay their CEOs millions - you've hired the brains, why turn to the government for a hand out?

2) Have tiered income tax rates - I mean, this is just fucking ridiculous;
whopayschartmememod.jpg


The lowest paying a higher tax rate?? Come on,..

3) Wipe out as many of these loop holes as possible. The bill would create a department, dedicated to finding where and how people (,... who are currently enjoying tax cuts to begin with,...) continue to dodge paying their fair share. Find the cracks and holes, plug them up.

4) Get rid of the 50% tax on gifted money, when it comes from an immediate relative (parents and siblings). Example, your parents give you a house and then you sell it, you then have to pay 50% on the sale of that home. That is utter crap. I would leave the 50% tax on gambling winnings as is though.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,622
8,149
136
Life sentence penalty for any politician caught for corruption, including their making laws that re-define corruption in their favor. AND NO PARDONS ALLOWED.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
As far as what I'd pass. A complete and total separation of church and state. Politicians are not allowed to invoke any of their religious beliefs while in office or during campaigning. No bills can be written or passed that have ANY basis in religious beliefs. No religious iconography can exist on ANY federal or state owned property. Churches or anyone who in any way serves as a voice for a church are not allowed to say a damn thing about politics. Religious organizations that do not function primarily as a charity get tax exempt status revoked (think those televangelist mega churches mainly). Religious organizations do not get exemptions from any laws, period.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
As far as what I'd pass. A complete and total separation of church and state. Politicians are not allowed to invoke any of their religious beliefs while in office or during campaigning. No bills can be written or passed that have ANY basis in religious beliefs. No religious iconography can exist on ANY federal or state owned property. Churches or anyone who in any way serves as a voice for a church are not allowed to say a damn thing about politics. Religious organizations that do not function primarily as a charity get tax exempt status revoked (think those televangelist mega churches mainly). Religious organizations do not get exemptions from any laws, period.


Too far IMO. Someone who attends or is a steward in a church can't have an opinion? Let's say that no one can who has an opinion on religion at all, for or against.

What I object to most is politicians using churches. That would include Republicans in Red states and Democrats and their black churches they use a . Speaking of the latter, civil rights is a very political issue and often brought up in black communities including churches. You'll need to silence them as well. Well unless free speech is revoked for all but those who you like. Nope too far by a mile. I suppose you can have this, but it wouldn't be legislation it would have to be an Amendment revoking the First.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I would go with universal health care and the outlawing of employer sponsered health care. There are few things worse than losing your job and insurance at the same time.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Who said anything about injustice?

No one, but I think tax policy is always approached from a philosophy behind it. Mine is that taxes should be as indifferent to the nature of the citizen as possible. You're a citizen - you owe us taxes, the same as every other citizen. That's it.

The philosophy I see too often IMO is that taxes are a tool to be used to address problems. We don't like that rich people make so much money - tax them more. We don't like that people smoke - tax cigarettes more. The government ought not be antagonistic to otherwise peaceful citizens.

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.

I'm in favor of everyone paying the same percentage of their income. That seems fair. If that turns out to harm me more than it helps me, at least I can say I'm governed by a fair system.

Most people have no trouble with laws that fairly penalize them. Moral people should have problems with laws that unfairly benefit them.
 
Last edited:

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,973
794
136
I can understand the argument against the fair tax; that the poor spend, as a percentage of their income, more than the rich do.

Theoretically under the fair tax, the poor would pay no tax due to the prebate. It supposedly completely untaxes the poor. I love the idea of the fair tax; I fear it would end up being one of those "well it looked good on paper" ideas.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Theoretically under the fair tax, the poor would pay no tax due to the prebate. It supposedly completely untaxes the poor. I love the idea of the fair tax; I fear it would end up being one of those "well it looked good on paper" ideas.

Sure, but I still think a flat-percentage income tax is simpler.

The more exceptions created and complexities introduced, the more we tempt abuse and corruption.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Sure, but I still think a flat-percentage income tax is simpler.

The more exceptions created and complexities introduced, the more we tempt abuse and corruption.

I want to see Romney's taxes. The top line is 10 million. Several hundred pages of weird deductions and his taxable income magically turns into $27.53 for the entire year. Deduction for a dancing horse. Deduction for having a stay at home wife. Deduction for...... magic underwear. Deduction for..... stay at home wife with magic underwear. Deduct the house as a business expense. Deduct food because you can't run a business when you're starving to death. Deduct heat and water because you can't conduct business without showering first. Deduct the house a second time because why not.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,084
8,940
136
I want to see Romney's taxes. The top line is 10 million. Several hundred pages of weird deductions and his taxable income magically turns into $27.53 for the entire year. Deduction for a dancing horse. Deduction for having a stay at home wife. Deduction for...... magic underwear. Deduction for..... stay at home wife with magic underwear. Deduct the house as a business expense. Deduct food because you can't run a business when you're starving to death. Deduct heat and water because you can't conduct business without showering first. Deduct the house a second time because why not.
Any accountant or tax attorney will tell you, deductions are nice, but the most important thing about sheltering income is how it is structured.

Earn all of your money in capital gains or "carried interest" and you're paying 15%. Because being rich and making money from money is hard and makes you deserve special rules.

Then you add in deductions. Which is how you can make $XX millions of dollars a year and pay less than 14% in Federal Income tax, while the nurse who treated your papercut last week earns $80k and pays 17% in Federal Income tax.

Re-distributive tax policy, indeed!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,627
54,579
136
No one, but I think tax policy is always approached from a philosophy behind it. Mine is that taxes should be as indifferent to the nature of the citizen as possible. You're a citizen - you owe us taxes, the same as every other citizen. That's it.

The philosophy I see too often IMO is that taxes are a tool to be used to address problems. We don't like that rich people make so much money - tax them more. We don't like that people smoke - tax cigarettes more. The government ought not be antagonistic to otherwise peaceful citizens.

I'm in favor of everyone paying the same percentage of their income. That seems fair. If that turns out to harm me more than it helps me, at least I can say I'm governed by a fair system.

Most people have no trouble with laws that fairly penalize them. Moral people should have problems with laws that unfairly benefit them.

Why does that seem fair, considering the decreasing marginal utility of money?

I'm interested to see what your reaction to a 34% sales tax would be. And we aren't just talking sales tax at best buy. For this to work that means we start taxing your rent too, or your house when you bought it. Imagine the kind of massive redistribution you would need after taxes just to make up for that kind of disaster.

I find people who support the "fair tax" have rarely seen what the actual cost of the fair tax would be.
 

Rebel_L

Senior member
Nov 9, 2009
453
63
91
No one, but I think tax policy is always approached from a philosophy behind it. Mine is that taxes should be as indifferent to the nature of the citizen as possible. You're a citizen - you owe us taxes, the same as every other citizen. That's it.

The philosophy I see too often IMO is that taxes are a tool to be used to address problems. We don't like that rich people make so much money - tax them more. We don't like that people smoke - tax cigarettes more. The government ought not be antagonistic to otherwise peaceful citizens.



I'm in favor of everyone paying the same percentage of their income. That seems fair. If that turns out to harm me more than it helps me, at least I can say I'm governed by a fair system.

Most people have no trouble with laws that fairly penalize them. Moral people should have problems with laws that unfairly benefit them.

I am curious what makes you think its a fair solution? Treating people equally is not the same thing as treating people fair.

We could for instance treat everyone the same and have everyone pay $x per year to the gov for taxes in recognition that everyone should contribute equally. After all everyone gets the same level of protection from having a standing army and everyone can make the same use of the infrastructure so why should not everyone contribute the same $ amount? Those that cant pay maybe we allow them to stay if they agree to become indentured servants to someone willing to pay for them?

Or we could tax at 100% take care of the needed gov services and distribute the rest evenly among everyone in recognition that the group is stronger than any individual and everyone who does their part to help the group deserves equal recognition.

The fair part is a moral judgment, should everyone who try's their best be allowed to earn enough to live on?, how well? How do we discriminate between the ones that help out more vs less? Should that actually be a consideration? Taxes after all are about how we live together as a group and take care of things as a group.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
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.

I was going to go for a flip answer, but I'd have to agree this would be one of the best starts as things are atm.

You aren't going to have a real change in government until something like that happens.

Getting money out of politics would easily fix 90% of the problems we have. You can look to Canada and see the difference it makes. They don't make laws just for the sake of throwing otherwise innocent people in jail. They don't have private prisons and prison guard unions donating millions of dollars to politicians. Canada's PM would be considered "poor" by US standards; he's not your typical Bush/Romney/Clinton billionaire. Canada also has more sensible gun laws - you can get a gun as long as you ask for one and take a test, just like a car, but most people don't bother. Canada is far from perfect, but I have lot more faith in their way of doing things.

If you fixed the above you probably would all ready have had this by now.

I would go with universal health care and the outlawing of employer sponsered health care. There are few things worse than losing your job and insurance at the same time.
 
Last edited:

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
38,660
31,665
136
Sure, but I still think a flat-percentage income tax is simpler.

The more exceptions created and complexities introduced, the more we tempt abuse and corruption.

How about flat tax with 25K exemption? Takes care of poor
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Why does that seem fair, considering the decreasing marginal utility of money?

It doesn't seem fair to you?

I'm interested to see what your reaction to a 34% sales tax would be. And we aren't just talking sales tax at best buy. For this to work that means we start taxing your rent too, or your house when you bought it. Imagine the kind of massive redistribution you would need after taxes just to make up for that kind of disaster.

I find people who support the "fair tax" have rarely seen what the actual cost of the fair tax would be.

I'm not a proponent of the fair tax as I said before. I think it would hit the poor especially hard.

Including state taxes, I already pay over a third of my income in income taxes.
 
Last edited:

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Any accountant or tax attorney will tell you, deductions are nice, but the most important thing about sheltering income is how it is structured.

Earn all of your money in capital gains or "carried interest" and you're paying 15%. Because being rich and making money from money is hard and makes you deserve special rules.
Bonus points if you're invested in a derivative-based ETF or "ETN". Dividends on stocks or index funds normally get paid as cash, and you pay capital gains tax on the cash. An ETN is different because you don't own the underlying stock. Dividends are not paid to cash, but they are included in raising the per share price of the ETN. That means you pay no taxes at all until you sell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_note#Tax_efficiency

The thing liberals don't understand is that there's no way to get around this. You can't tax people on their paper gains. That would open the door to give tax deductions on theoretical losses.
The closest thing to making it equal would be to tax capital gains as regular income.

The other "fair" solution proposed by conservatives is to tax money when it is spent rather than taxing it when it is earned. Yes, that would effectively even the playing field in one way, but this would make the loop hole even larger so you can grow your wealth tax free no matter how many times you buy or sell stocks and other assets. It would be the biggest gift to the top 1% in history.