|
Title: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Tck13 on May 18, 2008, 01:52:45 pm The Consumption Tax (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_tax") vs. The Income Tax. (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#United_States")
I'm interested in seeing what people think when comparing the two. Consumption Tax: * Economists and tax experts generally favor consumption taxes.[8] * Consumption taxes are neutral with respect to investment.[1] Depending on implementation (such as treatment of depreciation) and circumstances, income taxes either favor or disfavor investment. (On the whole, the US system is thought to disfavor investment.[1]) By not disfavoring investment, a consumption tax might increase the capital stock, productivity, and therefore increase the size of the economy.[1][2] * Consumption more closely tracks long run average income.[2] An individual or family's income often varies dramatically from year to year. The sale of a home, a one time job bonus, and various other events can lead to temporary high income that will push a low or middle income person into a high tax bracket. On the other hand, a wealthy individual may be temporarily unemployed and will pay no taxes. Or, Income Tax: Income tax basics While U.S. tax law is very complex, the underlying idea is relatively easy to understand. Simplifying greatly, gross income is all income from all sources (§ 61) less any exclusions (§ 101 et seq.). An exclusion is something that Congress has effectively said a taxpayer need not include in his or her income for tax purposes, such as employer-paid health insurance (§ 106) or interest from tax-exempt bonds (§ 103). For individuals, Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is gross income less any above-the-line deductions (§ 62). Above-the-line deductions are listed in § 62 and include trade or business deductions, alimony (§ 215), and moving expenses (§ 217). Taxable income is AGI less (1) itemized deductions or the applicable standard deduction, whichever is greater, and (2) a deduction for any allowable personal exemptions for the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse (if filing jointly), and the taxpayer's dependents. (In certain cases involving higher income taxpayers, the allowed personal exemptions may be reduced or even eliminated.) Non-itemizers take the standard deduction. Itemized deductions include any deduction not listed in § 62 such as charitable contributions (§ 170) and certain medical expenses (§ 213). Taxable income is then multiplied by the appropriate tax rate to arrive at the tax due. Tax credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (§ 32) or the Child Tax Credit (§ 24) lower the tax owed on a dollar-for-dollar basis. This means tax credits are more valuable than deductions because deductions are applied before the tax rate while credits are applied after. For instance, with a 35% tax rate, a deduction of $100 would save only $35 of taxes while a $100 credit would save $100 worth of taxes. It seems like Libertarians don't really like either. If you are a Libertarian, what would you suggest if not Consumption or Income Tax? Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: JohnKOTR on May 18, 2008, 06:12:23 pm I favor consumption tax over income taxes, in general. However, I have no particular problem with a flat income tax. What really bothers me is property taxes which amount to nothing less than rent due to the government.
Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: djahn on May 18, 2008, 06:35:26 pm I find personal income taxes offensive on several levels. In order to enforce an income tax, the government must intrude into the privacy of every citizen. Citizens are required to sign declarations of income, and those who fail to do so must be harrassed into compliance. Add the complexities of the current system, and the expectation that any citizens could comprehend the tax code becomes upsurd.
There is only one path our of the mess in my mind and that would be abolish it. my .02 David Jahn Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: bergie72 on May 18, 2008, 07:24:59 pm I find personal income taxes offensive on several levels. In order to enforce an income tax, the government must intrude into the privacy of every citizen. Citizens are required to sign declarations of income, and those who fail to do so must be harrassed into compliance. Add the complexities of the current system, and the expectation that any citizens could comprehend the tax code becomes upsurd. There is only one path our of the mess in my mind and that would be abolish it. Yeah -- what he said ;D Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Tck13 on May 18, 2008, 09:53:17 pm I find personal income taxes offensive on several levels. In order to enforce an income tax, the government must intrude into the privacy of every citizen. Citizens are required to sign declarations of income, and those who fail to do so must be harrassed into compliance. Add the complexities of the current system, and the expectation that any citizens could comprehend the tax code becomes upsurd. There is only one path our of the mess in my mind and that would be abolish it. my .02 David Jahn And then what? Some opponents to the Consumption Tax say that it once again hurts the Middle Class. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: djahn on May 18, 2008, 10:52:36 pm And then what? Some opponents to the Consumption Tax say that it once again hurts the Middle Class. Well, we didn't have either of these taxes for the first hundred years of this nation. The desperate need came when legislators rolled out socialism under FDR in the late 1930's. We owe it to our fellow citizens to enlighten them that this country is headed toward economic collapse unless we end the social programs asap. Scale back the government to the spending levels of six years ago and we can abolish the income tax. Scale it back further, and we begin to reverse the devastating trend toward financial doom. I recongize that free markets and capitalism aren't pain free, but I believe they offer the best path out of the current situation. David Jahn Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: JohnKOTR on May 18, 2008, 11:22:48 pm I find personal income taxes offensive on several levels. In order to enforce an income tax, the government must intrude into the privacy of every citizen. Citizens are required to sign declarations of income, and those who fail to do so must be harrassed into compliance. Add the complexities of the current system, and the expectation that any citizens could comprehend the tax code becomes upsurd. There is only one path our of the mess in my mind and that would be abolish it. my .02 David Jahn There have been people taken to court for tax fraud and for failure to pay their taxes and who've been acquitted using a defense based upon, "The tax code is too difficult to understand." In the end, you're right. This tax system was built upon socialism and the transfer of wealth from one group to another. The middle class can complain all that they want about the consumption tax, but there is no doubt that EVERYONE would be much better off with reductions in government spending and a modest consumption tax to support the local, state, and federal governments. The consumption tax is non-discriminatory and almost entirely unavoidable for illegal immigrants and those who would commit tax fraud. I still think that property taxes ought to be replaced first. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Tck13 on May 18, 2008, 11:43:00 pm What other types of taxes are people voting for?
Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: djahn on May 19, 2008, 12:11:53 am What other types of taxes are people voting for? Import, Export, Excise to name a few. Direct tax is permitted as well. David Jahn Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: klapton on May 19, 2008, 07:08:52 am There have been people taken to court for tax fraud and for failure to pay their taxes and who've been acquitted using a defense based upon, "The tax code is too difficult to understand." Actually, the statute that requires a wage-earning citizen to file a 1040 does not exist. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: bergie72 on May 20, 2008, 11:31:03 am I would rather see a consumption tax or other 'pay as you buy' tax.
With the income tax, you pay as you earn, and there are so many loopholes, those who can afford tax lawyers can pay next to nothing. With a consumption tax, you pay for only what you purchase (other than necessities like food), so everyone will pay proportionately. Drug dealers (who pay no income tax) will have to pay taxes on the new Escalades, Hummers, and everything else they buy, so they will actually be contributing to society for once. I think the Fair Tax is a great idea for just this reason. IMHO, of course ;D Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: russh on May 20, 2008, 05:52:37 pm My first post, so bear with me here. The thread is on Consumptive Tax VS. Income Tax. It seems to me that here in the great Commonwealth of PA we are honored to be able to pay all forms of tax on each and every dollar we earn and spend.
I don't really care which tax is selected, as long as it is only one. I currently pay state income tax on every dollar earned, and then 6% sales tax when I spend it. They get you coming and going. Property tax is local, then you have federal income tax. You can't confuse taxes from different branches of government. As much as I'd like to see one uniform tax that would cover Federal, State, and Local, I won't live to see that day. Having Said all that, I'd prefer consumptive tax to finally promote savings in this country. I'd rather keep my money for free, and only pay IF I choose to spend it. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: djahn on May 20, 2008, 11:04:21 pm My first post, so bear with me here. The thread is on Consumptive Tax VS. Income Tax. It seems to me that here in the great Commonwealth of PA we are honored to be able to pay all forms of tax on each and every dollar we earn and spend. <snip> Russh, thanks for the post and welcome to the club. David Jahn Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Orwell1984 on May 31, 2008, 12:41:07 pm And then what? Some opponents to the Consumption Tax say that it once again hurts the Middle Class. Well, we didn't have either of these taxes for the first hundred years of this nation. The desperate need came when legislators rolled out socialism under FDR in the late 1930's. We owe it to our fellow citizens to enlighten them that this country is headed toward economic collapse unless we end the social programs asap. Scale back the government to the spending levels of six years ago and we can abolish the income tax. Scale it back further, and we begin to reverse the devastating trend toward financial doom. I recongize that free markets and capitalism aren't pain free, but I believe they offer the best path out of the current situation. David Jahn I think David Jahn hit the nail on the head. I prefer a consumption tax over an income tax because it's simpler, more efficient, and encourages savings and investment. However, before you can restructre the tax system, it is important to cut government spending. If government spending is cut first, then the consumption tax will be lower, and thus doing less harm to the lower and middle class. The Commonwealth Foundation has suggested a plan to cut government spending by $6.7 billion. http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/docs/SpendingTips2008.pdf (http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/docs/SpendingTips2008.pdf) Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: foobar on May 31, 2008, 01:47:54 pm I think David Jahn hit the nail on the head. I prefer a consumption tax over an income tax because it's simpler, more efficient, and encourages savings and investment. However, before you can restructre the tax system, it is important to cut government spending. If government spending is cut first, then the consumption tax will be lower, and thus doing less harm to the lower and middle class. The Commonwealth Foundation has suggested a plan to cut government spending by $6.7 billion. Exactly. The big issues with our economic crisis is the Fed's creation of the real estate bubble and the out of control spending. Even if a fair tax is not implemented, the critical thing is that we reign in government spending because the more debt that is accumulated, the bigger a hit the dollar takes.http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/docs/SpendingTips2008.pdf (http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/docs/SpendingTips2008.pdf) Here's the big pickle the Fed has gotten itself into. If they raise interest rates too much, then the housing market gets killed and banks who happily lended out money will find themselves not getting it all back, which results in hyper-deflation, creating more unemployment. If they lower the rates, then we get the hyper-inflation and the dollar gets weaker. The key to getting out of this crisis is to first stop spending more than we take in. It's ridiculous that these politicans can't even manage their finances better than I could when I was 5 years old! Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Orwell1984 on May 31, 2008, 02:11:12 pm .....It's ridiculous that these politicans can't even manage their finances better than I could when I was 5 years old! [/quote] And a lot of these politicians have Ivy League educations.... Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: JohnKOTR on May 31, 2008, 02:17:48 pm What do they care? Its not their money that they're spending. And by increasing that spending, they just gain more favors and power in return.
Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Orwell1984 on May 31, 2008, 02:28:13 pm What do they care? Its not their money that they're spending. And by increasing that spending, they just gain more favors and power in return. They do it because the people let them. I personally blame the apathy and ignorance of the American public more than I blame corrupt politicians. Most people don't concern themselves with politics. They just want to work their 9-5 job and let somebody else deal with the politics of the world. When people turn their back on government, then corruption increases. So the real question for the LP and LPPA is, "How do we cure the apathy of the American people?" What can be done to convince "average" Americans that they aren't powerless? The PACleanSweep movement, led by Russ Diamond, is an example of grassroots activism by "average" Pennsylvanians that accomplished a lot in repealing the unconstitutional pay raise. http://www.pacleansweep.com/ (http://www.pacleansweep.com/) So it is possible for "average" Americans to bring forth positive change. However, revolutions such as PACleanSweep rise and then quickly fizzle out as people slip back into their habit of apathy. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: foobar on May 31, 2008, 02:41:17 pm What do they care? Its not their money that they're spending. And by increasing that spending, they just gain more favors and power in return. They do it because the people let them. I personally blame the apathy and ignorance of the American public more than I blame corrupt politicians. Most people don't concern themselves with politics. They just want to work their 9-5 job and let somebody else deal with the politics of the world. When people turn their back on government, then corruption increases. So the real question for the LP and LPPA is, "How do we cure the apathy of the American people?" What can be done to convince "average" Americans that they aren't powerless? The PACleanSweep movement, led by Russ Diamond, is an example of grassroots activism by "average" Pennsylvanians that accomplished a lot in repealing the unconstitutional pay raise. http://www.pacleansweep.com/ (http://www.pacleansweep.com/) So it is possible for "average" Americans to bring forth positive change. However, revolutions such as PACleanSweep rise and then quickly fizzle out as people slip back into their habit of apathy. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten much success, especially since my mom is a hardcore Democrat who thinks what I say about voting for other parties is crazy and is "stealing votes" from other candidates. Of course, she blames Ralph Nader for the loss of Al Gore's presidency even though there are many other factors that need to be considered. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Orwell1984 on May 31, 2008, 02:57:06 pm What do they care? Its not their money that they're spending. And by increasing that spending, they just gain more favors and power in return. They do it because the people let them. I personally blame the apathy and ignorance of the American public more than I blame corrupt politicians. Most people don't concern themselves with politics. They just want to work their 9-5 job and let somebody else deal with the politics of the world. When people turn their back on government, then corruption increases. So the real question for the LP and LPPA is, "How do we cure the apathy of the American people?" What can be done to convince "average" Americans that they aren't powerless? The PACleanSweep movement, led by Russ Diamond, is an example of grassroots activism by "average" Pennsylvanians that accomplished a lot in repealing the unconstitutional pay raise. http://www.pacleansweep.com/ (http://www.pacleansweep.com/) So it is possible for "average" Americans to bring forth positive change. However, revolutions such as PACleanSweep rise and then quickly fizzle out as people slip back into their habit of apathy. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten much success, especially since my mom is a hardcore Democrat who thinks what I say about voting for other parties is crazy and is "stealing votes" from other candidates. Of course, she blames Ralph Nader for the loss of Al Gore's presidency even though there are many other factors that need to be considered. I think Bob Barr is doing a good job telling the media that the "spoiler" argument is BS. It's like saying the Obama is "stealing" votes from McCain and McCain is "stealing" votes from Obama. How can you "steal" votes before the election even starts in November? How can you steal something that hasn't been earned yet? Besides, if I'm a fiscal conservative, then how does McCain or Obama own my vote? Neither one of them are fiscal conservatives. McCain is like a decaffinated version of Obama. It's like saying that you can only buy Coke or Pepsi. If I buy the generic coca cola from Sam's Club then Sam's Club is "stealing" money from Coke or Pepsi. Because if Sam's Club didn't make coca cola then I would have bought Coke or Pepsi instead. I'm interested in starting a libertarian website. I talked about it in the "Newcomers" section of this forum. I want the site to look "professional" and legitimate. I don't want it to look too amaturish. I want to integrate social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook through it. Utilize Web 2.0 technology so that it can link with other libertarian sites and organize Meet Up groups. I would like it to be a "one-stop" site that will sort of act as a hub for libertarian activism. It will also have many learning tools incorported to educate viewers about libertarian philosophy. I don't have the technological know how to make that happen just yet. But people tell me its not hard. If anyone has any ideas of how to go about doing that, I would greatly appreciate it. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: foobar on May 31, 2008, 03:16:11 pm I think Bob Barr is doing a good job telling the media that the "spoiler" argument is BS. It's like saying the Obama is "stealing" votes from McCain and McCain is "stealing" votes from Obama. How can you "steal" votes before the election even starts in November? How can you steal something that hasn't been earned yet? Besides, if I'm a fiscal conservative, then how does McCain or Obama own my vote? Neither one of them are fiscal conservatives. McCain is like a decaffinated version of Obama. Makes perfect sense, but some people just won't listen. I'll have to use that argument at a later point in time. It's like saying that you can only buy Coke or Pepsi. If I buy the generic coca cola from Sam's Club then Sam's Club is "stealing" money from Coke or Pepsi. Because if Sam's Club didn't make coca cola then I would have bought Coke or Pepsi instead. I'm interested in starting a libertarian website. I talked about it in the "Newcomers" section of this forum. I want the site to look "professional" and legitimate. I don't want it to look too amaturish. I want to integrate social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook through it. Utilize Web 2.0 technology so that it can link with other libertarian sites and organize Meet Up groups. I would like it to be a "one-stop" site that will sort of act as a hub for libertarian activism. It will also have many learning tools incorported to educate viewers about libertarian philosophy. I don't have the technological know how to make that happen just yet. But people tell me its not hard. If anyone has any ideas of how to go about doing that, I would greatly appreciate it. Now, if you want to start a website, you'll have to answer a few questions, like: -How are you going to host the page? Are you going to build your own server and host it from your house? (in which case you'll have to upgrade your ISP service) Do you want to pay for a service that hosts it for you? Or do you want to use a free, but much less reliable service? (and you usually can't pick your own domain name) -What will you use to construct the page? Are you looking for a Yahoo Geocities/Google Pages style or do you want to make web page itself? If so, are you going to use straight html or use a dynamic page such as JSP or ASP.NET? Will you use anything else like Flash? -What content will you put up on the page? This is probably the most important step before you actually create the page. Even before you deal with all of the technological details, get the general picture of what the website will look like. Now, I've never made a website, let alone actually uploaded and hosted it for all to see. I've done some really basic HTML, but that's about it. However, I can try to help you anyway I can. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: JohnKOTR on May 31, 2008, 03:43:16 pm What do they care? Its not their money that they're spending. And by increasing that spending, they just gain more favors and power in return. They do it because the people let them. I personally blame the apathy and ignorance of the American public more than I blame corrupt politicians. Most people don't concern themselves with politics. They just want to work their 9-5 job and let somebody else deal with the politics of the world. When people turn their back on government, then corruption increases. So the real question for the LP and LPPA is, "How do we cure the apathy of the American people?" What can be done to convince "average" Americans that they aren't powerless? The PACleanSweep movement, led by Russ Diamond, is an example of grassroots activism by "average" Pennsylvanians that accomplished a lot in repealing the unconstitutional pay raise. http://www.pacleansweep.com/ (http://www.pacleansweep.com/) So it is possible for "average" Americans to bring forth positive change. However, revolutions such as PACleanSweep rise and then quickly fizzle out as people slip back into their habit of apathy. +1 I fear that it will take nothing short of disaster for America, before the people become involved once more. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Orwell1984 on May 31, 2008, 04:02:41 pm What do they care? Its not their money that they're spending. And by increasing that spending, they just gain more favors and power in return. They do it because the people let them. I personally blame the apathy and ignorance of the American public more than I blame corrupt politicians. Most people don't concern themselves with politics. They just want to work their 9-5 job and let somebody else deal with the politics of the world. When people turn their back on government, then corruption increases. So the real question for the LP and LPPA is, "How do we cure the apathy of the American people?" What can be done to convince "average" Americans that they aren't powerless? The PACleanSweep movement, led by Russ Diamond, is an example of grassroots activism by "average" Pennsylvanians that accomplished a lot in repealing the unconstitutional pay raise. http://www.pacleansweep.com/ (http://www.pacleansweep.com/) So it is possible for "average" Americans to bring forth positive change. However, revolutions such as PACleanSweep rise and then quickly fizzle out as people slip back into their habit of apathy. +1 I fear that it will take nothing short of disaster for America, before the people become involved once more. Unfortunately, your probably right. However, the America will need to rebuild. When it does it we will make radical changes. It will either shift toward extreme socialism or capitalism. Depending on how well we organize now, we can shift the outcome to the libertarian's favor. I sense signs of hopelessness from some people on this forum. I don't mean any disrespect by that. Because it's everywhere! It's mainly an echo of the general public's apathy that created this mess in the first place. I wish I could hear solutions of how the LPPA can organize. Ron Paul took 16% of the vote in PA. 16% is a good number of people who have at least some libertarianism in their blood. We need to figure out how to tap into that.... Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: JohnKOTR on May 31, 2008, 06:46:01 pm We have two main problems. The first is that the electoral system is tilted very highly in favor of the two-party dictatorship. The second is that there are a few positions of the Libertarian Party or statements by its candidates that are highly unpopular and that people do not agree with. Immigration is a big one. Michael Badnarick turned off a lot of people when he talked about demolishing the U.N. building. Drugs. There are others.
We need to focus on the real important issues. Small government. Right to Bear Arms. Property rights. We need to tout those positions on the issues that will get people behind us and move on from there. It may well be that demolishing the U.N. Building and pissing on the ashes may never be possible -- though I'd love to do it. We've got to fight the battles we can win. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Orwell1984 on June 02, 2008, 09:57:20 am We have two main problems. The first is that the electoral system is tilted very highly in favor of the two-party dictatorship. The second is that there are a few positions of the Libertarian Party or statements by its candidates that are highly unpopular and that people do not agree with. Immigration is a big one. Michael Badnarick turned off a lot of people when he talked about demolishing the U.N. building. Drugs. There are others. We need to focus on the real important issues. Small government. Right to Bear Arms. Property rights. We need to tout those positions on the issues that will get people behind us and move on from there. It may well be that demolishing the U.N. Building and pissing on the ashes may never be possible -- though I'd love to do it. We've got to fight the battles we can win. I think the LP is moving in the right direction by nominating a candidate like Bob Barr who is more of a pragmatic libertarian than a purist. I have watched him on FOX News and other stations and he seems focused on fiscal conservatism and protecting civil liberties, private property, and privacy rights. This seems like the best way to go. Having radical candidates running for office like the LP has had in past years only scares people. Having somebody talk about abolishing the Federal Reserve on the debate stage scares people. I believe that abolishing the Federal Reserve is a good idea. But most Americans who aren't educated about monetary policy and libertarian thought are scared when they hear things like that. That is only one example, I can go on and on, but I think you get my point. Change must be slow and incremental. The LP needs to figure out which battles are worth fighting at the moment? Can they be won? Fiscal conservatism and protecting basic civil liberties, private property rights, and privacy appeals to a lot of Americans. Instead of advocating the abolishment of entire government departments, take a softer incremental approach and say that you want to streamline it and make it more cost efficient. Come up with market based approaches. Leasing the PA Turnpike to a private company is good example of what I'm talking about. An LP extremist would say, "Just hand over highways to the private sector and get government out!". A pragmatist says, "Just lease it out to private companies and have the state maintain ownership and ultimate control. At least for now." I think PA is slowly trying to deal with the two-party dictatorship. The following organizations are fighting for redistricting reform and fair elections: http://www.pacleansweep.com/ http://www.palwv.org/ PA League of Women Voters http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1762521 PA Common Cause http://www.rockthecapital.org/ http://www.democracyrisingpa.com/ PACleanSweep addresses this issue at http://www.pacleansweep.com/politics101.html (http://www.pacleansweep.com/politics101.html) : Quote Pennsylvania politics 101... A guide to the political landscape in Pennsylvania for the uninitiated. Pennsylvania General Assembly The General Assembly consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Pennsylvania is geographically divided into 203 House districts and 50 Senatorial districts. A Senatorial district may overlap several House districts. Each Pennsylvanian is represented by - and can elect - only one Representative and one Senator. Each Representative serves approximately 60,000 citizens and each Senator represents approximately 240,000 citizens. Representatives serve a two-year term. Senators serve a four-year term. Electing Representatives and Senators Every Representative must face re-election every two years. Every Senator must face re-election every four years. Senatorial elections are staggered to maintain continuity. In 2006, Senators from even numbered districts faced re-election. In 2008, Senators from odd numbered districts will face re-election. Following this schedule, all 203 Representatives and 25 of 50 Senators (from the even numbered districts) will face re-election in 2008. General Elections General Elections, held in November of each year, pit Republicans vs. Democrats vs. Independents vs. candidates from other parties (Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Reform, etc), and determine who will ultimately fill the elected office. All voters can vote for candidates from any party. To have their name appear on the ballot at a General Election, candidates must go through a nomination process. For Democrat and Republican candidates, that process is the Primary Election system. All other candidates must be nominated by their party and/or gather signatures on a petition to appear on the General Election ballot. Primary Elections Again, only Republican and Democratic party candidates participate in primary elections. Voters cannot vote for candidates from another party at the Primary Election. Republican voters select the Republican nominee to send to the General Election and Democratic voters select the Democratic nominee to send to the General Election. Independent voters and those registered under other parties cannot vote in a Primary Election, unless there is a ballot question or referendum. Republican and Democratic party candidates must gather signatures on petitions to have their name appear on the ballot at the Primary Election. Those signatures must come from registered voters in their own party who reside in the candidate's district. Signature Requirements Republican and Democratic party candidates for the PA House of Representatives must gather at least 300 quailified signatures to appear on the Primary ballot. Republican and Democratic party candidates for the PA Senate need 500. Independent candidates and those from other parties must gather a similar number of signatures, however their petitions are used to get their names on the General Election ballot. The number of signatures non-Republican/Democrat candidates are required to gather varies from year to year, based on results from previous years. These candidates can gather signatures from voters of any party affiliation. Here's The Way It Really Works in Pennsylvania Every ten years, after the federal government conducts a census, the General Assembly creates a Legislative Reapportionment Commission to redraw the borders of districts. In theory this is to keep everything fair and balanced, but in reality the two major parties (who control the General Assembly) scrap and fight over the whole process in an effort to gain an advantage over the other party. As a result, over the years most legislative districts have been manipulated (gerrymandered) to the point where one major party or the other has a distinct advantage over the other. For this reason, General Elections offer little opportunity for electing a new Representative or Senator because relatively few voters will vote for a candidate of the "other party" This is not a theory - it is a fact, proven by election results year after year. Primary Elections have now become the most important contests in Pennsylvania. Local Party Committees (The "Machine") Historically, when there is more than one candidate from either major party on the ballot at a Primary Election, that party's local committee will usually get together and endorse one candidate. In the local committees of the party which represents the gerrymandered majority of voters, the party bosses are generally cronies of elected officials. Naturally, when endorsement time rolls around, those incumbents usually get the nod over any challenger. Those "official" endorsements are usually reported by the local media and voters are led to believe that the party's endorsed candidate is the best person for the job. However, what most voters do not realize is that in addition to party bosses kowtowing to elected officials, the endorsements itself is often rigged. In many areas, a "pay to play" policy may be an unwritten rule, but in at least one county in PA, PACleanSweep has discovered evidence that this policy is actually written into committee bylaws. Here's how it works in that county: any endorsed candidate in a primary is expected to pony up 10% of their first year's salary for the elected position; win or lose, opposed or not. If that candidate wins the primary and is then opposed by another party's candidate at the General Election, they are expected to pony up another 10%. The Results With incumbent legislators manipulating the borders of districts every ten years and directing traffic in the local "pay to play" party committees, it's not too hard to see why the General Assembly traditionally had a 98% retention ratio year after year - until 2006, that is. This has led the General Assembly to have faith in their ability to get re-elected and has emboldened them to pass some outrageous legislation - capped off by Act 44, the unconstitutional pay raise of July 7, 2005. At PACleanSweep, we hope you will join us in saying "enough is enough" and work to defeat this system which no longer represents the citizens of Pennsylvania. Some Questions Every Pennsylvanian Should Ask 1. If the purpose of Primary Elections is to allow voters to choose their party's nominee for the General Election, why do local committees cloud the issue by making an endorsement? Why not simply allow the voters to choose the candidate they prefer? 2. Knowing that party endorsement is a "pay to play" system, is your local committee's endorsed candidate really the best person for the job, or merely the person most willing or able to buy or trade for the favor of local party bosses? 3. If only Republican and Democratic voters can participate in most Primary Elections, why do ALL taxpayers have to foot the bill? Isn't that taxation without representation? 4. If your local party bosses wish - through their "endorsement" process - to select the candidate they prefer, why not simply do that without the expense of a Primary Election, just like the other parties do it? 5. Who are the members of your local party's committee? 6. Who are the officers of your local party's committee? 7. Who sits on the Executive Committee of your local party? 8. Is this any way to run a Commonwealth? At PACleanSweep, we believe it is emphatically NOT the best way to run a Commonwealth. We helped to reverse this trend in 2006, when a total of 55 legislators were replaced, and we aim to continue that effort in the future Through the organizations listed above, I think the LPPA should help fight for redistricting reform and fair elections. This should be the number one issue, because without it, all the other issues mean nothing because the LPPA won't be able to get many candidates on the ballot, let alone in debates. Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Samantha1965 on June 04, 2008, 07:48:11 am On the issue of consumption vs. income tax, hands down you must come favor consumption. The single most onerous issue of income tax is the compulsory invasion of privacy and draconian methods of enforcment. Consumption tax is at least some what voluntary. You can always not buy or you can barter. If you choose to make transactions in dollars (a government created concept) then you must pay the user fee for dollars. Seems simple to me.
Samantha Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: Samantha1965 on June 04, 2008, 08:04:39 am You asked for alternative funding of the government. Governments at all levels own realestate. Sell the realestate, place the money in endowments and fund the government from the interest income. No compulsion at all.
Samantha Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: JohnKOTR on June 04, 2008, 05:40:49 pm Now, now, Samantha. We don't have time for rational solutions!
Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: bdively on June 09, 2008, 10:27:18 pm I am not sure if I am the only one on this threat that knows ppl who avoid paying income taxes but i just talked to two relatives that work under the table just this weekend. the FairTax (Consumption Tax) is the best way for ppl to get involved in where there taxes are going and KNOW how much they are paying for what they get.
Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: caomhin10p on June 11, 2008, 12:30:36 am In terms of an income tax, the negative income tax that Milton Friedman so eloquently wrote about is an excellent idea. The flat tax is a great idea as well. The main fact here is that the current system has very serious problems.
Title: Re: Consumption Tax vs. Income Tax Post by: JohnKOTR on June 11, 2008, 07:37:45 am The negative income tax has communism written all over it. It is wealth redistribution no matter how you slice it.
Powered by SMF 1.1.4 |
SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com |