You illuminate the corruption, that is, you must be a citizen to vote in the fraudulent system. By contracting to be a citizen you are granting the illegitimate corporate government jurisdiction over you. Likewise, when you check the box on the jury duty form that you are a citizen thus a peer or equal to another subclass. Equally interesting, if you establish you are a person (under the Bill of rights 'We the People') then you can demand a trial by peers which excludes any citizens. Or you can just challenge jurisdiction and avoid trial. (Not to be construed as legal advice)
Holy shit, I didn't know this From Leafly.com " Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who until recently was president and CEO of the company Cannabis Sativa Inc., announced earlier today that he"s running for president as a Libertarian. " https://www.leafly.com/news/headlines/cannabis-exec-gary-johnson-launches-presidential-bid-we-think
I voted for GJ in 2012. He received about a million votes, barely, I believe. No impact at all on the general election. What views of his have evolved since 2012 -- any? I'd consider him or Stein if their views are similar. I'm in a revolution state of mind this go around.
The biggest issue is the idea of replacing income/payroll tax with a consumption tax or sales tax. Sales taxes ares inherently regressive in nature because wealthy people use a much smaller percent of their income to buy things than poor people, it's basically a widely accepted fact. If you want a balanced budget you would need to create a pretty high sales tax to make up for not having income/payroll tax. This means that the wealthiest people will be better off but the average joe will be significantly worse off. There is not a single developed country on earth who used a regressive taxation system because they don't raise nearly as much money as a progressive system and adversely affect the people in the middle and lower class who really drive economic growth. There is no chance you can create a flat sales tax high enough to maintain a balanced budget and not cause a lot of issues for lower/middle class people.
GJ's best plan might be re: term limits. These lifelong politicians who get lifetime pensions -- many of them need to get the fuck out. The Boxer's and Pelosi's and Reid's and McConnell's, etc.
how would a balanced budget not be possible under johnson's FairTax? the government receives revenues and it budgets accordingly. johnson said he would veto any budget that is not balanced easy as pie
You know what would be badass? If we integrated hoe tax money is spent into the internet. Say you made 30,000 and need to pay 3,000, you could actually go and designate where your money would go, and it would be updated continually. So if defense was not getting funded, we would either be okay with it or have to apportion more money to It. IDK just popped into my head, I didn't iron it out at all
Reread what I posted. From what I understand his plan is to get rid of income tax and payroll tax then institute a flat sales tax to replace those other forms of taxation. Let's use very hypothetical numbers to illustrate my point. Say there's a a 20 percent flat sales tax on all transactions, maybe a little too high or low but I'm using it to illustrate a point so I'm just using easier numbers. If I'm someone who makes let's say 30,000 a year and I spend about 25 thousand of that cash every year to sustain myself. This would mean I'm in the bottom 2/5 of people in terms of wealth and pay about 10 percent on average in income tax. So out of that 30,000 I'm really only getting about 27,000 after taxes. Then you look at someone in the top tax bracket who pays about 25 percent effective tax rate depending on who you ask. Let's say they make about 2 million a year and probably spend about 750,000 because on average people who make that much money spend a much smaller percentage of their overall income. This would mean that they pay about 500,000 dollars so they would be left with about 1.5 million after taxes. So in a progressive taxation system the person who makes 2 million dollars is left with about 750,000 in the bank or 37.5% of income leftover whereas the person who makes 30,000 dollars a year has saved 2000 which is a little less than 7% of their income. Say you then switched it up and made a flat tax, which would probably have to be at least like 18 percent to even remotely come close to raising enough money. Now the person who made 30,000 is going to pay about 4500 under the flat tax and will only save about 500 dollars or about 2 percent of their income. The person who makes 2 million dollars will only spend about 750,000 so they will pay about 135,000 in taxes and will save about 1.15 million or 58% of their income. So my point is that you can say oh a flat tax is fair because it effects everyone equally but it's a very false notion when you look at the logistics of a flat tax. Wealthier people will spend a much smaller percent of their income than poor people a majority of the time which means wealthier people will pay a smaller effective tax rate than wealthy people. This is why pretty much every major country doesn't use sales tax as a main source of revenue because it inherently becomes regressive and hurts the lower/middle class well helping out wealthier people. On top of that sales tax will most likely never be able to raise enough money to balance a budget without a really high sales tax because of its regressive nature when you consider that most of the taxes paid come from the wealthier people in this country. I may not be saying this very eloquently and I know my example used a lot of assumption/oversimplification a but I hope that I got the point across that a sales tax is inherently regressive and most likely would not be a very effective system of taxation.
FairTax( which johnson supports) is a form of flat tax that has systems in place that prevent it from becoming regressive the truth of the matter is is that the wealthy consume a lot more than anyone else we can be quibbling about how much tax we have to pay,or what type of taxes we have to pay, but we should discuss the fact that the government does billions of wasteful spending. a tax rate of 100% will not fix anything. every time money is printed to cover our deficit, that is a hidden tax on everyone and THAT affects the poor the most. the feds are addicted to spending money it doesn't have and borrows it against future generations. so far it is not working out. * i am not endorsing fairtax but the tax code should be simplified, and i support johnson's policy of rejecting any budget that is not balanced
The tax code does need simplification. He can't go to far in rejecting the budget due to potential shutdowns. A line veto needs to be added.
I like it. The elite would faint at the thoughts of it so it's good with me. Anything has to be better than charging you a percentage of your income. The Mafia charge a percentage as well. Typed in the cockpit of a runaway Boeing
People couldn't bitch. You don't like potholes? Better apportion some money to roads. Etc Why shouldn't we have control over where or even if we pay taxes?
Do you have any more details on how you could institute a flat tax that wouldn't be regressive in nature. I'm not saying wealthy people don't consume a lot but the facts are that on average they spend a significantly smaller portion of their income than poor people although the they still do spend a large portion of their income.
I couldn't agree more, unfortonayely the Supreme Court would never allow it because in their mind it would give the president too much power. I think it should be a system where a president can line item veto and then congress would have to get a certain number to overturn the line item veto. I wouldn't set it as high as a standard for vetoing a bill of 2/3 but I don't know if a simple majority would be effective either because if the bill passed you probably will always have a simple majority voting against any line item vetos. Of course this is all hypotheticals because any bill would be thrown out by the SCOTUS in a minute.
- no tax on necessities - they aren't paying payroll taxes (which are regressive) - they aren't paying income taxes - monthly prebate paid to citizens. this is amount is determined annually and based off of the poverty level. this would mean the effective tax rate on the low end is zero. - eliminates the convoluted tax code, reduces greatly bureaucracy, and people don't have to pay an accountant just to get their taxes done. it doesn't matter what portion of their incomes the wealthy spend. they would pay more taxes. they will pay a lot more actual dollars in taxes. everyone pays their "fair share" and for those who are poor that would be zero. like i said i don't necessarily endorse this but i don't see any issues with this specific example of a flat tax. the real issue is wasteful government spending which is the most regressive (and hidden) tax in existence. your claim that it would not raise enough revenues is somewhat misleading IMO. the government isn't obligated to balance the budget under any tax system. i think it would be fair to say that this flat tax does discourage a large, bloated, wasteful and corrupt federal government - at least moreso than what currently exists. if so, i'm glad.