Alright folks, we're coming up on an election year...it's time to begin thinking about the issues. I'm not saying you have to be passionate about politics or be consumed by every issue, but you need to be informed.
Just before the Christmas break, a $555-BILLION spending bill was passed. A bulk of that was for unrestricted billions in the war on terror...unrestricted meaning that no one is accountable for how those funds are spent.
The war is a whole other topic for another day, but staying on the spending bill...also included in the spending bill are the so-called earmarks for congress' pet projects. Do you realize that within this spending bill are things like a $700,000 bike trail in Minnesota, $10,000,000 for attorney's fees for illegal immigrants, money for studying some insect in France, and to include my own hometown, $3.6 million for sewer repairs in Indiana.
Just to spell it out a little more, the spending bills are the obvious part...the things that the government spends money on. But remember, the money they are spending is ours...our tax money that is.
I don't know about you, but I sure as heck don't want my tax dollars being spent on a bike trail, or to pay for lawyers for illegal immigrants....and I'm sure you don't want your tax dollars being spent on sewer repairs in Indiana.
This could be an important issue. While the Democratic candidates are finding ways to spend more taxpayer money, there are at least two Republican hopefuls that would like to do away with the IRS altogether. To be fair, some of the Democratic issues are noble, but I have to be honest, I don't want the federal government running any kind of healthcare.
The two Republican hopefuls I am speaking of are Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. I believe Mitt Romney would like to do the same kind of things as Mike Huckabee, but I wouldn't swear to it. Huckabee wants to replace income tax with a national flat consumption tax on certain items. These items are not yet spelled out, and Huckabee believes that he could run the flat tax in the range of 20 - 25 percent.
Ron Paul wants to merely demolish the IRS, period. He doesn't think that there needs to be any consumption tax to make up for the loss of federal revenue.
I like both ideas for different reasons. Ron Paul's idea would go back to the Founding Fathers, whom didn't mandate any kind of income tax, and would count on tarrifs to raise money for federal needs. This would clearly eliminate the pork spending of congress, and allow for states to institute higher taxes to pay for state-specific projects. Then each state can decide and vote on what to build with tax payer funds. The questions that arise for me is how much income would we actually get through tarriffs? I could see getting enough to pay for national defense...but would there be enough for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade? Eventually those institutions would need to be overhauled anyway, but we can't just leave a generation of retirees without income they were promised.
On the Huckabee side, I think that a consumption tax would reach a class of people that have skirted paying taxes for years. I also think it would increase personal savings, as people would see 20 or 25 percent taxes on things and try to be more thrifty.
I don't necessarily see a negative side to Huckabee's proposal, other than it's not Ron Paul's idea...keep the federal government out of our money. At the end of the day, while Huckabee's proposal would decrease spending, it may not stop the ear-marking altogether, whereas Ron Paul's idea would. I'm a big fan of giving more control to the states, particularly on issues such as spending. Let Minnesota's governor try to convince tax payers that $700,000 would make them happier or heathier or increase tourism or whatever a $700,000 bike trail would do...just don't make me pay for it...I live in Indiana for crying out loud and never plan on moving to Minnesota.
So to me, it seems like an easy enough issue to get behind. Keep everyone's tax dollars within the state they live. Perhaps there will need to be some tweaking done, but wouldn't everyone like to pay less taxes and at least get to see what their tax dollars is going for?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
These pork items are horrible. You are right to go to a state view. These are not federal issues.
The one thing about a consumption tax is the fact that do we really know what the impact would be on consumption?
I think you are right that people would see a 25% tax on goods and save more, but what will that do to the economy?
I trhink we would need to take baby steps. Maybe institute a national sales tax and over time increase it.
Post a Comment