Many people do not understand what the notion of being a progressive is about. It’s the notion that the more wealth, the more power, the larger the insitution, the faster the regulatory and taxation burden should grow. A progressive taxation system would follow a curve like this:
$1 Earned, 5% taxation on first dollar
$2 Earned, 10% taxation on second dollar
$3 Earned, 15% taxation on third dollar
$4 Earned, 20% taxation on fourth dollar
$5 Earned, 25% taxation on fifth dollar
In other words:
You make $1, you pay a total of 5 cents in taxes
You make $2, you pay a total of 15 cents in taxes
You make $3, you pay a total of 35 cents in taxes
You make $4, you pay a total of 80 cents in taxes
You make $5, you pay a total of 125 cents in taxes
Alternatively, a progressive scheme can be created/and or enhanced by “flat” tax cuts, such as giving a equal tax credit regardless of wealth. For example, let’s say you cut everybody’s tax bill by $500 per year. The rich person who pays $10,000 in taxes gets them reduced to $9,500, while the poor person who pays $750 in taxes, only pays $250 in taxes. The value to the poor person is far greater then the wealthier person.
There are three reasons why progressive taxation (and regulation) is an important concept for society.
We want to encourage growth by making it easier for people to get started in business with a much lower regulatory and taxation burden
The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility states that every additional dollar or additional product that one owns, the value to the owner decreases.
We want to discourage businesses from growing too large, dominating the economy, and discouraging innovation.
Society needs taxes to pay for the public services, programs, and infrastructure that are used in common or are neccessary to promote a just and fair society. Yet, when we tax society, we should always be working to create a tax and regulatory structure:
That encourages small businesses to grow.
That encourages creativity and new approaches to old problems.
That allow less affluent people to accumulate money and resources to help them invest in their own future and become more affluent.
Good tax policy encourages innovation and growth. That’s what progressive tax policy does, unlike other more regressive schemes of taxation that over-tax the poor, and discourage them from making the investments needed for growth and personal improvement.
They allow voters real choice in electing officials.
They allow for primaries to help select both party’s candidates.
You create a wall between lobbyists and elected officials.
They unprofessionalize legislative bodies.
Fresh Blood. When you prevent a person from spending a life time in office, it allows new people to serve in the office. New people have fresh ideas.
Real Choice in Elected Officials. People say that term limits prohibit people from choosing who they want to vote for. Yet, we know elections with incumbents are rarely a series of fair choices. Incumbents use their official duties to curry support with special interests, ensuring that they almost always win.
Legitmate Primaries to Select Both Parties Officials. There are rarely legitimate or even competitive primaries against incumbents. Incumbents enjoy so much financial support from the special interests and political parties, that most challengers can not unseat them.
Create a Wall Between Special Interests and Elected Officials. With long-term incumbents, they have much more time to get to know and trust special interests. With long-term incumbents, they are much more likely to have served in office the same time as the people who are trying to lobby them.
Unprofessionalize Legislative Bodies. While you probably want your denist or automobile repair shop technician to a professional, you don’t really want your politician to a be professional. You want people not to be stuck in their ways, and to try innovative things. Leave it to the professional and non-political bureaucracy to implement things.
In our country we tax criminals and sex offenders through fines and user fees, so why not tax the politicians? We know that many politicians enguage in criminal behavior, and those who don’t probably are wasting a lot of public money mostly for their own benefit.
Politicians spend a lot of the public’s money, often for their pet causes. So why not ask them to contribute a little more tax dollars to society’s benefit as a whole? Why not have a have a 10% income surcharge on top of their existing tax bracket, something that is affordable enough for the average man who wants to get into the dirty business of politics, but also enough to make up for what the politicians take from society.
While it’s probably not realistic to make politicians tax themselves, it does seem like a good idea. When political people take so much from society, they should be asked to give a little bit more back, in the form of a modest 10% surcharge on all income earned.
I really enjoy debating with people. I realise that many times I probably won’t change their minds, but I like putting out my side of the story, and pointing out why I believe the things that I do. My opponents may at times have far better researched facts or be set in their ways, but it is so much fun to say it how I see it.
I’m not one to like to be pushed around. I don’t like seeing people disagreeing with me. I wish I could push them over to see the world the way I do based on my own personal experiences. While granted I doubt I will ever change any body’s mind, it’s just so much fun to argue.
They say our country is as strong as it is based on the amount and quality of free speech there is out there. More speech and more voices is always improving the quality of the debate. Yet I sometimes wonder when too much can start to crowd out the debate. Or when I dilute down my best ideas by combining them with too many others.
A common rallying cry these days from the Republicans is that the Democrat’s programs are socialism. They fear government-imposed equality that will deprive individual choice and the freedom to live one’s life as one chooses. The reality is that logic is faulty in a modern-era with big businesses staffed with lawyers that abuse the most basic principles enshrined in our laws.
Good government policy does not impose socialism or deprive choice. Instead, it protects and enhances the individual’s ability to make choices. People are allowed to make good choices based on accurate information thanks to government regulation. Government ensures that there is a basic level of quality or safety in the products they buy and use. It also protects sellers of products to ensure that they receive the compensation they are due, and labourers their pay.
Neither of the major political parties is advocating forced equality. What most Democrats want is to provide accurate and truthful information to consumers, and ensure that they get ensured a basic quality of life. Democrats don’t want to force people to one equal standard of living, but they do want to ensure that nobody is deprived basic healthcare or the ability to make ends should a terrible life event happen such as a job loss.
I don’t want the government telling me how to live my life any more then the next guy. Yet, I believe government can regulate businesses to ensure fairness without infringing on my personal choices. What one does to make money is fundamentally different then what one choose to do on their leasure time.
You often hear the nuttiest theories when you listen to people talking about politics. There is a prevalent belief that your opponent is somehow corrupt, and that you know the only true philosophy.
It’s always the fault of the:
Corporate Interests
Big Money
Corrupt Labor Unions
Ethnic or Religious Minorities
Assuming that you don’t affiliate yourself psychologically with one of those groups. It just seems only human to want to believe that people besides yourself can’t be operating with all of their facilities. Yet, we all know that is not true.
Most conspiracy theories have a kernel of truth. Most of us have a financial interest in many of the things we do. Even if we don’t have a direct financial stake, we usually know somebody with a financial stake, or are at minimum are ideologically attached to an idea.
Yet, just because we don’t necessarily agree with one person or group’s position, we shouldn’t be believing that they are conspiring against us or are corrupt. They may have very legitimate reasons for believing what they believe.
For those desiring a certain policy outcome, they may be appalled at how slow government is to get certain policy goals done. Yet, grid lock is a good thing. It means that all conflicting interests are at the table, and that they are effectively represented. All significant interests are able stall or stop things that would be seriously detrimental to their own standing.
No one interest should be given preferential treatment based soley on their constituency size or constituency wealth.
Democrats should be left a few seats short of 60 in the US Senate, so that critical measures are done in a bipartisan fashion, that requires compromise with Republicans. One could hope that their continues to be conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, that makes getting legislation passed requires a lot of arm twisting and balancing of legislation. The fillibuster should not be repealed.
