Showing posts with label federal spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal spending. Show all posts

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Tax Cuts

The following was written in April 2014, as part of a response to the Campaign for Liberty's 2012 survey questionnaire for candidates running for federal office.



20. Indicate the tax cuts you are willing to vote for:
- Across-the-Board Income Tax Cut
- Capital Gains Tax Cut
- Business Tax Cut
- Estate Tax Cut

     I will vote for all of the above mentioned tax cuts.
     Given the fact that this year we are between 2/3 and ¾ of the way closer to reducing the gap between the 2009 deficit and a balanced budget, it is no longer anywhere near as unreasonable to consider cutting taxes as it seemed five years ago; nor unreasonable to refrain from increasing spending, borrowing, Quantitative Easing, the debt, the deficit, and establishing realistic, permanent limits on debt, spending-to-GDP ratios, and debt-to-GDP ratios.
     A budget that cuts commerce, military, and intelligence first - before carefully cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and the Departments of H.U.D. and Education, and other departments and programs - will make the prospects of decreased taxes and balanced budgets even more realistic. Therefore, I will vote for legislation providing for across-the-board income tax cuts, following cuts in spending and the adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment.
     I will vote to lower all federal income taxes to 15% - and then, as soon as possible, to 12.5% - for all income earners living above the poverty line. I will also vote for capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gift tax cuts, because they are all duplicative taxes; taxes on the savings of and transactions in wealth which has already been taxed generally as personal income.
     In principle, I am as open to reducing and abolishing general taxes on personal income as I will on reducing and abolishing the four duplicative taxes. This is because these taxes could not rightfully be considered duplicative taxes if the initial income taxation never occurred in the first place. But it is for that reason that I will be more open to abolishing general taxes on personal income.
     I will support abolishing general income taxes gradually (but not before enacting a temporary negative income tax) while keeping the capital gains, business dividends, estate, and gift taxes; for as long as are necessary to balance the budget and pay off the nation's debt. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment which would repeal the 16th Amendment and provide for the federal government to tax capital gains, business dividends, and estate and gifts, but not personal income in a general manner.
     I take this position because to enact taxation on the income of all earners (i.e.,capitation) - instead of earners in special categories – would only serve to perpetuate an unfair balance of the tax burden, risk increasing the costs and bureaucracy of tax collection, and risk that a surveillance state and the militarization of bureaucrats and police officers could be depicted as necessary to enforce it.
     While supporting the reduction of spending and the transition to a temporary negative income tax, I will vote to support legislation providing for the 10% to 15% range of rates now paid on capital gains to be assimilated to 15%, followed by a decrease of that rate to 12.5% as soon as the 15% spending-to-G.D.P. ratio limit – and a provision for swift transition to the 12.5% mark - have been met in a Balanced Budget Amendment.
     I would additionally vote to support removing the second-lowest tax bracket's exemption from the capital gains tax, and I would vote to remove subsidies to businesses which pay less than zero in their taxes due to those subsidies, increasing the rates on all taxes they and their employees pay to the aforementioned 15% to 12.5% range.
     While supporting spending reductions and the negative income tax, I will also vote to support lowering taxes on business dividends from the 15% to 35% rates range to 15% for all, with only the lowest income bracket being exempted. I will also support lowering the estate tax rate from 40% down to 12.5% as soon as possible.
     After spending cuts have been achieved, the negative income tax has been enacted, debt has been reduced, and the negative income tax has been abolished, I will vote to support legislation authorizing the taxation of income and sales only upon condition of such legislation's constitutionality, and of such taxes being apportioned according to either the population of each state, the value of the land in each state, or some reconciliation thereof. I will sponsor a constitutional amendment to that affect, which would amend Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.
     I will additionally sponsor legislation to authorize use of the federal government's power to collect duties, imposts, and excises, which Congress has the constitutionally enumerated power to levy. I will support levying such tariffs in a manner which imposes the highest fees on nations which have the greatest disparity of wealth, and standards on human rights, pollution, and labor safety and health, while imposing the lowest tariffs on nations which have the least of these problems. I believe that this would help avoid the risks of war associated with economic sanctions, as well as encourage the alignment of profitable trade with human rights and a decent standard of living.


     Finally, I would urge most states to double or triple their total revenues coming from the unimproved value of land, while phasing out general taxes on income and sales.





For more entries on taxation, please visit:

The General Welfare Clause

The following was written in November 2013 as a response to the questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican Party).

Here is the link to the original questionnaire:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw

This is my answer to Question #12.



12. C
   (Congress's power to provide for the general welfare means that the federal government should exercise power over issues that affect the entire U.S. population; not that business interests, social welfare, nor any light and transient cause that might help some indeterminate number or group of people, should justify federal spending)
   Congress's power to provide for general welfare means that (C) the federal government should exercise power over issues that jeopardize the safety of the entire U.S. population.
   There is no explicit power of Congress to “provide for the common good”, and the power to provide for the “general welfare” is often misinterpreted. “General welfare” does not mean vague welfare; that is, it does not mean (D) any government that can help citizens.
    It does also not mean (A) protecting, bailing out, and giving favors to businesses and industries or (B) providing all citizens with a minimum income. The “general welfare” means “the good of all (or nearly all) people in the country”.
    This interpretation of the General Welfare Clause is essential to preventing runaway federal spending on national projects that benefit only one area of the nation, or customers and owners of - and investors in – certain businesses.

    A bridge that would only be used by a handful of people a day in Alaska, and a public transit system in Madison, Wisconsin that would be used by a hundred thousand people a dayet cetera, do not benefit all or nearly all American citizens. How those projects are funded should reflect that fact, as well as the principles of local and decentralized government upon which our structure of government was based.





For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

Federal Spending

The following was written in November 2013 as a response to the questionnaire for federal candidates seeking an endorsement from the Liberty Caucus of the Republican Conference (i.e., the Republican Party).

Here is the link to the original questionnaire:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwi.rlc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F05%2FFederal-Candidate-Questionnaire.doc&ei=u3B8UqXbBqPiiwL2ioCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHAzM58Dr-APGVchRKzOkVV0TKRyw&sig2=qStOgZ0RAgXVAbnHi2kFtw

This is my answer to Question #6.





6. B
   (From the current level, federal government spending should decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments and/or tax decreases rather than increase or be set at some undetermined level)
   Federal government spending should (B) decrease, returning any surpluses to the private sector through debt repayments and/or tax decreases. I would not favor (A and C) increasing spending because I believe that we can and should reduce spending and eventually reduce taxes without ceasing federal involvement in any programs which cannot be administered without the assistance of the federal government.
   I would not favor (D) setting spending at whatever level is necessary to fund worthwhile government programs, because I feel that this attitude reflects a lack of principles about the proper role, size, and scope of government, and that it is a slippery slope to lack of fiscal restraint, deficits, and unfunded liabilities.
   As such, I would support efforts to pass a balanced budget amendment, and I would enthusiastically consider – but be cautious to approve – any proposed Cut-Cap-and-Balance-type legislation.




For more entries on budgets, finance, debt, and the bailouts, please visit:

How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box

      This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...