If I had absolute power for 24 hours, I could fix some of the most pressing problems in the USA. And it’s simple. It’s common sense. And it has something of a sound foundation in the Constitution.
There’s a little clause in the Constitution that says there can be no taxation without representation. So if these folks are going to take some of our money to run the country, they must represent our interests. We are essentially hiring them to do a job.
Apply the converse is what would, with the mere stroke of a pen, clean out the majority of corruption, eliminate the debt eventually, and produce so many jobs, we’d be sending recruiters to Mexico and Central America saying ,”Please come to America where there is so much prosperity and opportunity that we can’t supply the demand.”
This pen-stroke of genius is to make a law that says ‘No representation without taxation’. Do you see the beautiful ramifications of the idea. If when people took a direct benefit from the federal government like food stamps, or Pell grants, or subsidized housing or earned income credit or any other money or benefit for which they had to make NO sacrifice, they would forfeit their right to vote for a lengthy period of time.
It would stop corruption in the government because representatives would only represent the interests of those people who labored to produce the money to provide government benefits. When we have a vast voting block choosing representatives who promise increasingly elaborate perks and benefits for which somebody else must pay, there is nothing to motivate those representative from promising cruises and palaces and gourmet lifestyles. . .
It would end the deficit because tax payers will pick representatives who demand less of them, not more. People who pay taxes are VERY motivated to be sure the government costs and spends less and would not tolerate waste.
Tax payers mostly live within their means and would force the government to do so also.
It’s fair. If the taxpayer is the employer, shouldn’t the employer decide what work the employee does? It seems obvious that this is the case, doesn’t it?
Prosperity would abound because taxpayers are more prosperous than non-taxpayers and with the streamlined governement that would result from accountable behavior of the representatives, people would have courage and confidence enough to hire people. Lots of people. Uncle Sam would butt out in establishing the true value of labor. The market would find it’s own fair levels through supply and demand.
The illegal immigration problem would go away. We’d have plenty of workers here, and when new people wanted to come in, there would be an abundance through the increased prosperity and the drastically decreased dole. They would have no influence on governement or politics until they were themselves taxpayers. The only control we would need would be to eliminate criminal immigration.
Do you remember the interview done in the last presidential election where a woman said she was voting for Obama because he promised that she wouldnt’ have to worry about her mortgage anymore? Did she think Mr. and Mrs. Obama were going to chip in to pay her mortgage? No, she thought she’d found a very expert pick pocket and wanted to use him.
Now if this were to be considered, (which obviously no representative of a district without income taxpayers, (half the USA) would vote for it.
So the next best thing is a Federal sales tax to replace the income tax. Everyone pays. Everyone pays exactly in proportion to their consumption. Everyone has a vested interest in the economy and money saving methods.
If I were in charge of the USA, I would also make most of that federal sales tax be applied only in the community where it was collected. Oh, I guess that would be a state. That’s it! I’m in favor of the STATES handling their unique problems and challenges according to their resources. Let the government provide for common defense of those states through the military. . .wait a minute, didn’t I read something about that in the Constitution?
There’s a little clause in the Constitution that says there can be no taxation without representation. So if these folks are going to take some of our money to run the country, they must represent our interests. We are essentially hiring them to do a job.
Apply the converse is what would, with the mere stroke of a pen, clean out the majority of corruption, eliminate the debt eventually, and produce so many jobs, we’d be sending recruiters to Mexico and Central America saying ,”Please come to America where there is so much prosperity and opportunity that we can’t supply the demand.”
This pen-stroke of genius is to make a law that says ‘No representation without taxation’. Do you see the beautiful ramifications of the idea. If when people took a direct benefit from the federal government like food stamps, or Pell grants, or subsidized housing or earned income credit or any other money or benefit for which they had to make NO sacrifice, they would forfeit their right to vote for a lengthy period of time.
It would stop corruption in the government because representatives would only represent the interests of those people who labored to produce the money to provide government benefits. When we have a vast voting block choosing representatives who promise increasingly elaborate perks and benefits for which somebody else must pay, there is nothing to motivate those representative from promising cruises and palaces and gourmet lifestyles. . .
It would end the deficit because tax payers will pick representatives who demand less of them, not more. People who pay taxes are VERY motivated to be sure the government costs and spends less and would not tolerate waste.
Tax payers mostly live within their means and would force the government to do so also.
It’s fair. If the taxpayer is the employer, shouldn’t the employer decide what work the employee does? It seems obvious that this is the case, doesn’t it?
Prosperity would abound because taxpayers are more prosperous than non-taxpayers and with the streamlined governement that would result from accountable behavior of the representatives, people would have courage and confidence enough to hire people. Lots of people. Uncle Sam would butt out in establishing the true value of labor. The market would find it’s own fair levels through supply and demand.
The illegal immigration problem would go away. We’d have plenty of workers here, and when new people wanted to come in, there would be an abundance through the increased prosperity and the drastically decreased dole. They would have no influence on governement or politics until they were themselves taxpayers. The only control we would need would be to eliminate criminal immigration.
Do you remember the interview done in the last presidential election where a woman said she was voting for Obama because he promised that she wouldnt’ have to worry about her mortgage anymore? Did she think Mr. and Mrs. Obama were going to chip in to pay her mortgage? No, she thought she’d found a very expert pick pocket and wanted to use him.
Now if this were to be considered, (which obviously no representative of a district without income taxpayers, (half the USA) would vote for it.
So the next best thing is a Federal sales tax to replace the income tax. Everyone pays. Everyone pays exactly in proportion to their consumption. Everyone has a vested interest in the economy and money saving methods.
If I were in charge of the USA, I would also make most of that federal sales tax be applied only in the community where it was collected. Oh, I guess that would be a state. That’s it! I’m in favor of the STATES handling their unique problems and challenges according to their resources. Let the government provide for common defense of those states through the military. . .wait a minute, didn’t I read something about that in the Constitution?
3 Comments
yep! more state power, less federal power. And people can move to the state which follows the politics they agree with.
Please don't presume that everyone who gets assistance provides nothing in return. 90% of enlisted people's families qualify for food stamps, – and they are willing to give their all. This is just one "for example."
Military families receive a variety of allowances and benefits that are not part of their taxable pay. They can qualify for alternative assistances, other than food stamps. Statistics I found on Military.com indicate that less than one tenth of one percent of military families actually take food stamps. You inadvertantly make my point. Military families are givers and contributors and not working the system on the backs of their neighbors. Even if such a law were inacted, it would be a no-brainer to exclude the military and their spouses from restrictions. My premise still stands. Employees don't set the wage and those on the dole shouldn't have any voice in setting the policy for those benefits. They could vote in elections for which they do contribute monies such as county elections if they pay property taxes and state elections if they receive no benefit from the state and pay state sales taxes.