Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[candycorn]

Bull-shit-vik hunter; he lives in fear of black helicopters, foreign banker ninja types, squirrels, and generally anybody who isn't afraid of his macho internet tough-guy routine.

I've seen a black helicopter in my area - it says "KLOS" on the side, looks a lot better than the lime green one I see all over the place; a sleek Sikorsky.

Supporting the constitution isn't a conspiracy theory - it is those like you who seek the dissolution of the constitution who are the nut jobs. The small measure of accountability our rulers have to the populace is purely because of the codified law of the constitution.

Actually, thats a pretty complete mis-representation of what I wrote. At no point do I call for dissolution of the Constitution. Never did. What I do want to do is perfect the document to address the real life challenges for the 21st century.

How high do you want the debt ceiling to go? Until you put something in the source coding of the country about it; the sky isn't the limit....I think that limit may be interstellar space! LOL.

Thats just one of the many real life problems we face and there is absolutely nothing that is going to be done about it. Lets say that Boehner and Obama can come to an understanding; next President who knows?

Anyway, I never said dissolve the Constitution. Never.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Bull-shit-vik hunter; he lives in fear of black helicopters, foreign banker ninja types, squirrels, and generally anybody who isn't afraid of his macho internet tough-guy routine.

I've seen a black helicopter in my area - it says "KLOS" on the side, looks a lot better than the lime green one I see all over the place; a sleek Sikorsky.

Supporting the constitution isn't a conspiracy theory - it is those like you who seek the dissolution of the constitution who are the nut jobs. The small measure of accountability our rulers have to the populace is purely because of the codified law of the constitution.

Actually, thats a pretty complete mis-representation of what I wrote. At no point do I call for dissolution of the Constitution. Never did. What I do want to do is perfect the document to address the real life challenges for the 21st century.

How high do you want the debt ceiling to go? Until you put something in the source coding of the country about it; the sky isn't the limit....I think that limit may be interstellar space! LOL.

Thats just one of the many real life problems we face and there is absolutely nothing that is going to be done about it. Lets say that Boehner and Obama can come to an understanding; next President who knows?

Anyway, I never said dissolve the Constitution. Never.

Shut your fucking mouth bro. Now your gonna back track out of your bullshit? Man you're pathetic, You can't even stand up for yourself and the crap you blow out of your pie hole? His response to you went right over your dumb ass head. It's our Constitutional right to demand that the Federal Government honor the Constitution, But you're too brainwashed and weak minded to comprehend that. Uncensored2008 was talking about me, because he know's that I stand for the Constitution just as he does, unlike a puke bag like you. Why don't you go jump off a bridge bro.

Tell yuh what, I am going to mind fuck you for the next few weeks until the point where you won't even want to log in here anymore. You gutless, yes man toad.

~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Don't mess with the bull son, or you'll get the horns.

~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Go to bed cacacorn. Sleep on it. Tomorrow is another day.

~BH

 

[candycorn]

I've seen a black helicopter in my area - it says "KLOS" on the side, looks a lot better than the lime green one I see all over the place; a sleek Sikorsky.

Supporting the constitution isn't a conspiracy theory - it is those like you who seek the dissolution of the constitution who are the nut jobs. The small measure of accountability our rulers have to the populace is purely because of the codified law of the constitution.

Actually, thats a pretty complete mis-representation of what I wrote. At no point do I call for dissolution of the Constitution. Never did. What I do want to do is perfect the document to address the real life challenges for the 21st century.

How high do you want the debt ceiling to go? Until you put something in the source coding of the country about it; the sky isn't the limit....I think that limit may be interstellar space! LOL.

Thats just one of the many real life problems we face and there is absolutely nothing that is going to be done about it. Lets say that Boehner and Obama can come to an understanding; next President who knows?

Anyway, I never said dissolve the Constitution. Never.

Shut your fucking mouth bro. Now your gonna back track out of your bullshit? Man you're pathetic, You can't even stand up for yourself and the crap you blow out of your pie hole? His response to you went right over your dumb ass head. It's our Constitutional right to demand that the Federal Government honor the Constitution, But you're too brainwashed and weak minded to comprehend that. Uncensored2008 was talking about me, because he know's that I stand for the Constitution just as he does, unlike a puke bag like you. Why don't you go jump off a bridge bro.

Tell yuh what, I am going to mind fuck you for the next few weeks until the point where you won't even want to log in here anymore. You gutless, yes man toad.

~BH

Yawn!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well, THIS certainly turned into a productive conversation!

What about fair taxes and appropriate regulation? Anyone still want to talk about fixing things with out flaming, labeling and name calling like a bunch of 13 year old girls?

 

[candycorn]

Well, THIS certainly turned into a productive conversation!

What about fair taxes and appropriate regulation? Anyone still want to talk about fixing things with out flaming, labeling and name calling like a bunch of 13 year old girls?

Agreed. Some people don't know how to be civil. I respond in the manner in which I'm debated.

Until we fix the source document that allows for any and all measures be they for good or for ill in the long term....it doesn't really matter; the fixes proposed are temporary in nature.

I do think that we need much stronger regulation and audit capabilities of those regulatory bodies. As for fair taxes...well I think we need to make the taxes much simpler and close almost all loopholes. At the same time, I think we need to expand the deductions for things like medical care and the total costs of college and or training; maybe scale it back in some cases such as 100% deductibility for math and engineering majors and maybe only 25% deductibility for those wanting to major in jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The first and most important step to better government is to abandon dogma and pursue a pragmatic course, enacting measures based on facts, not ideology.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Well, THIS certainly turned into a productive conversation!

What about fair taxes and appropriate regulation? Anyone still want to talk about fixing things with out flaming, labeling and name calling like a bunch of 13 year old girls?

Agreed. Some people don't know how to be civil. I respond in the manner in which I'm debated.

Until we fix the source document that allows for any and all measures be they for good or for ill in the long term....it doesn't really matter; the fixes proposed are temporary in nature.

I do think that we need much stronger regulation and audit capabilities of those regulatory bodies. As for fair taxes...well I think we need to make the taxes much simpler and close almost all loopholes. At the same time, I think we need to expand the deductions for things like medical care and the total costs of college and or training; maybe scale it back in some cases such as 100% deductibility for math and engineering majors and maybe only 25% deductibility for those wanting to major in jurisprudence.

Taxes shouldn't be rocket science. Pick a number between 1 and 10... say 7.

Start with a 7% consumption tax on all retail transactions, both business and personal, and a 7% tax on all income, both corporate and personal.

If that produces too much money in the tax coffers, slide it back to 6%, if more is required, bump it up to 8%.

Every legal entity, both corporate and individual pays EXACTLY the same rate.

I could be talked into allowing every corporation to deduct non-executive payroll from its income before applying the tax, but only if it's applied exactly the same to every corporation.

 

[candycorn]

Well, THIS certainly turned into a productive conversation!

What about fair taxes and appropriate regulation? Anyone still want to talk about fixing things with out flaming, labeling and name calling like a bunch of 13 year old girls?

Agreed. Some people don't know how to be civil. I respond in the manner in which I'm debated.

Until we fix the source document that allows for any and all measures be they for good or for ill in the long term....it doesn't really matter; the fixes proposed are temporary in nature.

I do think that we need much stronger regulation and audit capabilities of those regulatory bodies. As for fair taxes...well I think we need to make the taxes much simpler and close almost all loopholes. At the same time, I think we need to expand the deductions for things like medical care and the total costs of college and or training; maybe scale it back in some cases such as 100% deductibility for math and engineering majors and maybe only 25% deductibility for those wanting to major in jurisprudence.

Taxes shouldn't be rocket science. Pick a number between 1 and 10... say 7.

Start with a 7% consumption tax on all retail transactions, both business and personal, and a 7% tax on all income, both corporate and personal.

If that produces too much money in the tax coffers, slide it back to 6%, if more is required, bump it up to 8%.

Every legal entity, both corporate and individual pays EXACTLY the same rate.

I could be talked into allowing every corporation to deduct non-executive payroll from its income before applying the tax, but only if it's applied exactly the same to every corporation.

Not rocket science but science somewhat...I think you have a good start there.

I'd like to see some incentive rates on the corporate side and incentive rates on the public side as well.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Agreed. Some people don't know how to be civil. I respond in the manner in which I'm debated.

Until we fix the source document that allows for any and all measures be they for good or for ill in the long term....it doesn't really matter; the fixes proposed are temporary in nature.

I do think that we need much stronger regulation and audit capabilities of those regulatory bodies. As for fair taxes...well I think we need to make the taxes much simpler and close almost all loopholes. At the same time, I think we need to expand the deductions for things like medical care and the total costs of college and or training; maybe scale it back in some cases such as 100% deductibility for math and engineering majors and maybe only 25% deductibility for those wanting to major in jurisprudence.

Taxes shouldn't be rocket science. Pick a number between 1 and 10... say 7.

Start with a 7% consumption tax on all retail transactions, both business and personal, and a 7% tax on all income, both corporate and personal.

If that produces too much money in the tax coffers, slide it back to 6%, if more is required, bump it up to 8%.

Every legal entity, both corporate and individual pays EXACTLY the same rate.

I could be talked into allowing every corporation to deduct non-executive payroll from its income before applying the tax, but only if it's applied exactly the same to every corporation.

Not rocket science but science somewhat...I think you have a good start there.

I'd like to see some incentive rates on the corporate side and incentive rates on the public side as well.

Any incentives open the economy up to the exact same bullshit we live under today because of individuals and businesses currying political favors to get the special tax treatment.

As I said, I'm opposed to any income tax deductions beyond non-executive payroll for ALL businesses. Any incentives given by the government through the tax code will end in corruption.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. The simpler the better.

 

[candycorn]

Taxes shouldn't be rocket science. Pick a number between 1 and 10... say 7.

Start with a 7% consumption tax on all retail transactions, both business and personal, and a 7% tax on all income, both corporate and personal.

If that produces too much money in the tax coffers, slide it back to 6%, if more is required, bump it up to 8%.

Every legal entity, both corporate and individual pays EXACTLY the same rate.

I could be talked into allowing every corporation to deduct non-executive payroll from its income before applying the tax, but only if it's applied exactly the same to every corporation.

Not rocket science but science somewhat...I think you have a good start there.

I'd like to see some incentive rates on the corporate side and incentive rates on the public side as well.

Any incentives open the economy up to the exact same bullshit we live under today because of individuals and businesses currying political favors to get the special tax treatment.

As I said, I'm opposed to any income tax deductions beyond non-executive payroll for ALL businesses. Any incentives given by the government through the tax code will end in corruption.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. The simpler the better.

I agree simpler is better but there is a point where too simple = loss of opportunity.

For example...math and science education. You make 100% of that education deductible while not offering that same incentive for, lets say, lawyers and finance. People on the fence about becoming engineers or something else may go/get steered toward being an engineer or clinical researcher which, in the long run, will benefit this nation. Thats not "currying favor" as you say at least as far as I can see.

Certainly some incentives will do just what you said and thats not what I'm talking about. But, for example, you'd like to make payroll tax deductible; I say only do that if the company is going to hire the person directly; not through an agency that pays no benefits or retirement planning; no tax deduction for McJobs.

Again, I think that is why we need to elevate the tax code and a whole raft of other important things above the variable winds of politics and put such matters out of the reach of opportunistic politicians and perhaps revisit them every ten years or so

Your ideas are good.

 

[Foxfyre]

Labor is a commodity just as much as any other commodity. Labor is a cost of doing business as much as energy, transportation, facilities, machinery, and raw materials are a cost of doing business. It doesn't matter how the labor is obtained. For anything other than enforcing federal laws re immigration and child labor and protecting the unalienable rights of the workers, the Federal government should not be concerned with how the workers are paid or what benefits they receive.

If you tax the cost of doing business, almost nobody will be able or willing to conduct business. If you excessively tax the profits of a business, those willing to operate businesses will simply operate them elsewhere in more business friendly environments.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Not rocket science but science somewhat...I think you have a good start there.

I'd like to see some incentive rates on the corporate side and incentive rates on the public side as well.

Any incentives open the economy up to the exact same bullshit we live under today because of individuals and businesses currying political favors to get the special tax treatment.

As I said, I'm opposed to any income tax deductions beyond non-executive payroll for ALL businesses. Any incentives given by the government through the tax code will end in corruption.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. The simpler the better.

I agree simpler is better but there is a point where too simple = loss of opportunity.

For example...math and science education. You make 100% of that education deductible while not offering that same incentive for, lets say, lawyers and finance. People on the fence about becoming engineers or something else may go/get steered toward being an engineer or clinical researcher which, in the long run, will benefit this nation. Thats not "currying favor" as you say at least as far as I can see.

Certainly some incentives will do just what you said and thats not what I'm talking about. But, for example, you'd like to make payroll tax deductible; I say only do that if the company is going to hire the person directly; not through an agency that pays no benefits or retirement planning; no tax deduction for McJobs.

Again, I think that is why we need to elevate the tax code and a whole raft of other important things above the variable winds of politics and put such matters out of the reach of opportunistic politicians and perhaps revisit them every ten years or so

Your ideas are good.

I disagree. Not that my ideas are good, I like my ideas.

I disagree that the tax code should be used for anything but collecting taxes.

Taxes are taxes and spending is spending. The two should never cross paths. If The People want to give anything, be it commerce, welfare or education, a 'government incentive', it should be in the form of a spending bill that specifies the amount and the time frame, including an end date to the donation, and any strings that are attached. Everyone keeps paying the same taxes they always have. Simple taxes = fair taxes.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Labor is a commodity just as much as any other commodity. Labor is a cost of doing business as much as energy, transportation, facilities, machinery, and raw materials are a cost of doing business. It doesn't matter how the labor is obtained. For anything other than enforcing federal laws re immigration and child labor and protecting the unalienable rights of the workers, the Federal government should not be concerned with how the workers are paid or what benefits they receive.

If you tax the cost of doing business, almost nobody will be able or willing to conduct business. If you excessively tax the profits of a business, those willing to operate businesses will simply operate them elsewhere in more business friendly environments.

I disagree. I think that if every entity with a legal right to engage in commerce knew they were being taxed at 7% on their income and 7% on their retail consumption it would add a great deal of certainty to the market place.

There may be a few lawyers and accountants looking for work, but they're usually smart. They'll adapt.

 

[Foxfyre]

Labor is a commodity just as much as any other commodity. Labor is a cost of doing business as much as energy, transportation, facilities, machinery, and raw materials are a cost of doing business. It doesn't matter how the labor is obtained. For anything other than enforcing federal laws re immigration and child labor and protecting the unalienable rights of the workers, the Federal government should not be concerned with how the workers are paid or what benefits they receive.

If you tax the cost of doing business, almost nobody will be able or willing to conduct business. If you excessively tax the profits of a business, those willing to operate businesses will simply operate them elsewhere in more business friendly environments.

I disagree. I think that if every entity with a legal right to engage in commerce knew they were being taxed at 7% on their income and 7% on their retail consumption it would add a great deal of certainty to the market place.

There may be a few lawyers and accountants looking for work, but they're usually smart. They'll adapt.

You'll have a tough time selling that to a business like a grocery store that operates with like a 3% profit margin. All business is not equal and all do not share equal risk and investment. It is a pretty good prescription for running all the rest of our manufacturing base out of the country though.

 

[candycorn]

Any incentives open the economy up to the exact same bullshit we live under today because of individuals and businesses currying political favors to get the special tax treatment.

As I said, I'm opposed to any income tax deductions beyond non-executive payroll for ALL businesses. Any incentives given by the government through the tax code will end in corruption.

Simple taxes = fair taxes. The simpler the better.

I agree simpler is better but there is a point where too simple = loss of opportunity.

For example...math and science education. You make 100% of that education deductible while not offering that same incentive for, lets say, lawyers and finance. People on the fence about becoming engineers or something else may go/get steered toward being an engineer or clinical researcher which, in the long run, will benefit this nation. Thats not "currying favor" as you say at least as far as I can see.

Certainly some incentives will do just what you said and thats not what I'm talking about. But, for example, you'd like to make payroll tax deductible; I say only do that if the company is going to hire the person directly; not through an agency that pays no benefits or retirement planning; no tax deduction for McJobs.

Again, I think that is why we need to elevate the tax code and a whole raft of other important things above the variable winds of politics and put such matters out of the reach of opportunistic politicians and perhaps revisit them every ten years or so

Your ideas are good.

I disagree. Not that my ideas are good, I like my ideas.

I disagree that the tax code should be used for anything but collecting taxes.

Taxes are taxes and spending is spending. The two should never cross paths. If The People want to give anything, be it commerce, welfare or education, a 'government incentive', it should be in the form of a spending bill that specifies the amount and the time frame, including an end date to the donation, and any strings that are attached. Everyone keeps paying the same taxes they always have. Simple taxes = fair taxes.

Perfectly valid point.

If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region....do you think the government should have no business trying to make sure that those persons have access to health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water, etc...

For a private company to relocate or provide basic services to such places would be totally illogical without incentives. You would want to Subsidize Con Edison or Comcast or Humana (and in the process taking our tax money and giving it to a private corporation) instead of simply offering an incentive for those corporations to provide service?

Really?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Labor is a commodity just as much as any other commodity. Labor is a cost of doing business as much as energy, transportation, facilities, machinery, and raw materials are a cost of doing business. It doesn't matter how the labor is obtained. For anything other than enforcing federal laws re immigration and child labor and protecting the unalienable rights of the workers, the Federal government should not be concerned with how the workers are paid or what benefits they receive.

If you tax the cost of doing business, almost nobody will be able or willing to conduct business. If you excessively tax the profits of a business, those willing to operate businesses will simply operate them elsewhere in more business friendly environments.

I disagree. I think that if every entity with a legal right to engage in commerce knew they were being taxed at 7% on their income and 7% on their retail consumption it would add a great deal of certainty to the market place.

There may be a few lawyers and accountants looking for work, but they're usually smart. They'll adapt.

You'll have a tough time selling that to a business like a grocery store that operates with like a 3% profit margin. All business is not equal and all do not share equal risk and investment. It is a pretty good prescription for running all the rest of our manufacturing base out of the country though.

Why? Why would an understandable and simple tax rate scare away manufacturing when the lawyers wet-dream we call a tax code now doesn't seem to?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I agree simpler is better but there is a point where too simple = loss of opportunity.

For example...math and science education. You make 100% of that education deductible while not offering that same incentive for, lets say, lawyers and finance. People on the fence about becoming engineers or something else may go/get steered toward being an engineer or clinical researcher which, in the long run, will benefit this nation. Thats not "currying favor" as you say at least as far as I can see.

Certainly some incentives will do just what you said and thats not what I'm talking about. But, for example, you'd like to make payroll tax deductible; I say only do that if the company is going to hire the person directly; not through an agency that pays no benefits or retirement planning; no tax deduction for McJobs.

Again, I think that is why we need to elevate the tax code and a whole raft of other important things above the variable winds of politics and put such matters out of the reach of opportunistic politicians and perhaps revisit them every ten years or so

Your ideas are good.

I disagree. Not that my ideas are good, I like my ideas.

I disagree that the tax code should be used for anything but collecting taxes.

Taxes are taxes and spending is spending. The two should never cross paths. If The People want to give anything, be it commerce, welfare or education, a 'government incentive', it should be in the form of a spending bill that specifies the amount and the time frame, including an end date to the donation, and any strings that are attached. Everyone keeps paying the same taxes they always have. Simple taxes = fair taxes.

Perfectly valid point.

If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region....do you think the government should have no business trying to make sure that those persons have access to health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water, etc...

For a private company to relocate or provide basic services to such places would be totally illogical without incentives. You would want to Subsidize Con Edison or Comcast or Humana (and in the process taking our tax money and giving it to a private corporation) instead of simply offering an incentive for those corporations to provide service?

Really?

I think that ANY involvement the government wants to have in anyone's life should come in the form of a spending bill and not fucking with the tax code.

Taxes are taxes and spending is spending. How stupid it is to dole out welfare in the form of a tax credit... Does that make sense to ANYone?

 

[candycorn]

I disagree. Not that my ideas are good, I like my ideas.

I disagree that the tax code should be used for anything but collecting taxes.

Taxes are taxes and spending is spending. The two should never cross paths. If The People want to give anything, be it commerce, welfare or education, a 'government incentive', it should be in the form of a spending bill that specifies the amount and the time frame, including an end date to the donation, and any strings that are attached. Everyone keeps paying the same taxes they always have. Simple taxes = fair taxes.

Perfectly valid point.

If you live in West Texas or some other sparsely populated region....do you think the government should have no business trying to make sure that those persons have access to health care, utilities, high speed internet, clean water, etc...

For a private company to relocate or provide basic services to such places would be totally illogical without incentives. You would want to Subsidize Con Edison or Comcast or Humana (and in the process taking our tax money and giving it to a private corporation) instead of simply offering an incentive for those corporations to provide service?

Really?

I think that ANY involvement the government wants to have in anyone's life should come in the form of a spending bill and not fucking with the tax code.

Taxes are taxes and spending is spending. How stupid it is to dole out welfare in the form of a tax credit... Does that make sense to ANYone?

Its better than the government paying Humana directly; or Comcast directly. or taking the lowest bidder to put a hospital somewhere. Not smart.

Anyway, I see your point; I just think you're wrong especially in the examples mentioned above.