Hence why we need to get rid of the lobbyists. Here's how, I think...
You need a 30,000 per legislator ratio, or something in that regard. Anything bigger prevents grassroots campaigning. When you have a huge ratio of people per legislator, I think that results in candidates resorting to lobbyists for campaign finances, which they'll have to bend to their wishes if they want any future "donations".
Let me put it another way. Laws that are based on morality rather than safety infringes on people's liberties. This includes censorship of all types, such as banning people from wearing t-shirts in public that contain obscene words or pictures. This includes censoring the Internet in libraries. This includes banning women from divorcing while pregnant. This includes banning people from calling women bad names, but it's okay to call men bad names.
As for library Internet censorship, there's a better way. Have a sign on top of the computer that says, "For educational purposes only, not entertainment. Students have priority. Librarians have discretion on this matter."
In my opinion, government should have a light touch, only doing what they absolutely need to do. They shouldn't be going around making laws based on moral reasons.
1) Sometimes it is to get money, but it really depends upon the location. In some places, if I'm not mistaken, police officers have a quota they have to meet for the number of tickets to write.
2) Well, perhaps a public referendum on such privacy matters. Maybe if 60% of the population can agree that it would be a good thing, then maybe it should be allowed. But such privacy referendums need to be redone like every 5 to 10 years if done at all, incase public opinion changes. After all, laws are suppose to be reflective of what the people want.
It just seems like common sense that something like this would be a huge invasion of privacy. Is the government so strapped for cash that this is the only method of getting revenue that they can think of? Or am I missing something here?
(Ignore the fact that speed can be recorded incorrectly due to tire size among other things.)
This link will talk about taxes in Washington State. By the way, if you have any ideas for real time chat, and if you wish to discuss this further, let me know.
I live in Washington State, where the state portion of sales tax is 6.5 cents per dollar. When I buy stuff online, I pay sales tax. But then again, I don't think I bought anything out of state yet. (Amazon.com is located in my state.) I believe the sales tax was included in the price.
I realize counties (and perhaps cities) could be dissolved by the state, and that they are unlike states when compared to the federal system. Especially after the stupid (in my honest opinion) decision of Baker vs. Carr.
Here is what I'd like to see to make our tax system more progressive...
One, create a list of exemptions from sales tax. Such exemptions would solely be those that are considered the necessities of life. This list would be big, but there are lists made on the Net that could be used for such purposes.
Two, eliminate the state portion of (residential) property tax. Don't force the lower levels to follow since the lower levels may have difficultly getting the revenue they need at the time being. This helps some. This helps those who are in the lower class.
Three, if the lower levels eventually get rid of their (residential) property tax, then we could do this... Create a special property tax that would never result in foreclosure, but those who have defaulted in three previous years wouldn't be eligible for this program. This program would be a state insurance plan to cover damage to one's property. Still, this is only limited to residential property. The goal is to aid those who need aid from like wind storms, floods, and other stuff. The more people opt into in insurance program, the cheaper it is.
Four, to make up lost revenue, raise the state portion of the sales tax. This obviously is for the exemptions thing I mentioned above.
In my state, 6.5 cents generates approximately $6.5 billion in revenue. I think I heard the state portion of property tax generates $4 billion in revenue. And the budget is like $26 billion, but not sure if that's for a two or one year period.
No I am not advocating a police state. All I said was to make it illegal, very illegal, to intentionally not pay sales tax when doing the transaction in order to save money. And by very illegal I mean long jail sentences and harsh fines.
Concerning property taxes for the levels below the state level, I can't say we should remove them as of now. All I can say is that states should remove their portion of property tax and make it up with other sources of revenue, with either an increase in sales tax (additionally make it progressive) or sin taxes. If we removed property taxes for counties or cities or school districts, we'd have huge issues of how they'd get the revenue they need.
I think we're pretty much done with this unless we can find a medium that will allow us to speak in real time.
There was a proposal of getting rid of property taxes in Washington State. Of course, it would have only been the state portion. But the revenue would have had to be made up another way, which would have been income tax. But I was trying to point out it's possible for any of the major three (income, property, and sales) to essentially be non-existant.
As for those not paying sales tax when they are suppose to, made it very illegal. So illegal if caught, it really wouldn't have been worth it. As for buying stuff over the Internet, let me put it this way. When someone buys something over the Internet, sales tax should (in my current opinion) be applicable to the physical location of where you bought it from.
I live in pacific time, and I'd be okay if we went to permanent mountain time here, or in other words -7 GMT year-round.
As for the school issue, here's an idea. During certain times of the year when the daylight hours are short, you shrink the school day by an hour so each class is a bit shorter. You make up that time by extending class a bit longer during the spring and summer months.
Also, readjusting the school start time on a monthly basis so there's a couple hours of daylight before the first bell rings would be a good idea. It's more of a biological concern rather than a time-of-day concern.
Personally, I'd like year-round daylight savings time. No more hassle of springing forward or falling back.
As for the school issue, let me put it this way. Start schools no sooner than a couple hours after dawn, and readjust monthly. It shouldn't have to do with the clock. It should have to do with physical daylight breaking and how we biologically respond to it. Kids don't get enough sleep as they do today.
And while we're on this subject of "daylight", we really should consider moving the November general election a couple months earlier into the year. Cause logically, some places don't have daylight when it's time to vote.
Either extend it so it's year-round or don't extend it at all. It will break computer software. Although most people could upgrade, some can't. It's too much of a hassle. People won't like memorizing new stuff either. Just make it year round. I believe California was considering this once.
Sorry, I don't understand. And about sales tax and income tax double taxation, I agree, hence why we should get rid of income tax. Cause the hidden cost of income tax causes even non-sales taxable items to be taxed.
This is a radical idea, and I have no idea if it has ever been done.
The artist would have it set up so he or she gets 10 cents from every sale of a given song. (No albums, keep songs sold separately.) Now, this is done by the artist with no middleman. It could be done over the Net. The person downloading the song would agree that if he or she decides to sell a digital copy of the song, that he or she must give 10 cents per sold to the artist. This would be an anti-incentive to give the song away for free. Perhaps in the music-video or song there'd be a disclaimer it would be on the honour of the buyer to do the right thing.
I said: I could argue why I should have to pay annual taxes on property I bought no matter what my income is?
You said: I'm not sure what you mean by this.
My reply: The annual taxes on owned property don't factor in if one has an income or not. Someone could own a cheap home paying like $2-3k per year in property taxes, but if that person happens to lose his or her job, after a few years the government is going to take it away and sell it. - With property tax, there is no safeguard against losing one's income. With sales tax, obviously if you have no income, you have no tax worries. As for income tax, that's an entirely different subject cause it creates a mess in the system I won't go into.
If we don't fix the problems and have a fresh race among all the candidates eligible, then this will drag on and on for the four year duration.
At the very least, we should have another election this November, but it shouldn't be a run-off. It should be among all the candidates eligible last time, otherwise it's unfair cause it's changing the rules. If we want a run-off between the top two, then we'd have to hold a primary and have those two go on, or in other words, two more elections. I stick by what I say. I hope someone can back me up.
They need to stand up to people threatening to sue. And as for the legal expenses, chances are if they person-being-sued were to ask for help from netizens, they'd receive it.
I could argue why I should have to pay annual taxes on property I bought no matter what my income is?
At least there's no (state) income tax where I am.
Sales tax makes the most sense. You are using government currency in the first place. One way of looking at it is, "It's their money and it's kind of like a fee to use it."
Unusued property would best be sold.
With property taxes, one idea would be to exempt the median value of the residential property from being taxed. If the median house value is let's say a cheap $250k, then only tax the excess of that value.
This will probably be the last I speak on this subject (unless we can find something more in real time to discuss.)
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/22/news-reed.php I think is the same story. I haven't compared them that much.
Hence why we need to get rid of the lobbyists. Here's how, I think...
You need a 30,000 per legislator ratio, or something in that regard. Anything bigger prevents grassroots campaigning. When you have a huge ratio of people per legislator, I think that results in candidates resorting to lobbyists for campaign finances, which they'll have to bend to their wishes if they want any future "donations".
Let me put it another way. Laws that are based on morality rather than safety infringes on people's liberties. This includes censorship of all types, such as banning people from wearing t-shirts in public that contain obscene words or pictures. This includes censoring the Internet in libraries. This includes banning women from divorcing while pregnant. This includes banning people from calling women bad names, but it's okay to call men bad names.
As for library Internet censorship, there's a better way. Have a sign on top of the computer that says, "For educational purposes only, not entertainment. Students have priority. Librarians have discretion on this matter."
In my opinion, government should have a light touch, only doing what they absolutely need to do. They shouldn't be going around making laws based on moral reasons.
1) Sometimes it is to get money, but it really depends upon the location. In some places, if I'm not mistaken, police officers have a quota they have to meet for the number of tickets to write.
2) Well, perhaps a public referendum on such privacy matters. Maybe if 60% of the population can agree that it would be a good thing, then maybe it should be allowed. But such privacy referendums need to be redone like every 5 to 10 years if done at all, incase public opinion changes. After all, laws are suppose to be reflective of what the people want.
Which would be a better solution?
1) Forcing everyone to have technology put in their cars to ticket them when they speed.
2) Those caught speeding, first offense, fine, second offense, lose license for quite a long period of time.
It just seems like common sense that something like this would be a huge invasion of privacy. Is the government so strapped for cash that this is the only method of getting revenue that they can think of? Or am I missing something here?
(Ignore the fact that speed can be recorded incorrectly due to tire size among other things.)
When I said "they", I meant the companies need to consider alternatives.
There's the saying, "The customer is always right." Perhaps they need to consider alternatives.
This link will talk about taxes in Washington State. By the way, if you have any ideas for real time chat, and if you wish to discuss this further, let me know.
I live in Washington State, where the state portion of sales tax is 6.5 cents per dollar. When I buy stuff online, I pay sales tax. But then again, I don't think I bought anything out of state yet. (Amazon.com is located in my state.) I believe the sales tax was included in the price.
I realize counties (and perhaps cities) could be dissolved by the state, and that they are unlike states when compared to the federal system. Especially after the stupid (in my honest opinion) decision of Baker vs. Carr.
Here is what I'd like to see to make our tax system more progressive...
One, create a list of exemptions from sales tax. Such exemptions would solely be those that are considered the necessities of life. This list would be big, but there are lists made on the Net that could be used for such purposes.
Two, eliminate the state portion of (residential) property tax. Don't force the lower levels to follow since the lower levels may have difficultly getting the revenue they need at the time being. This helps some. This helps those who are in the lower class.
Three, if the lower levels eventually get rid of their (residential) property tax, then we could do this... Create a special property tax that would never result in foreclosure, but those who have defaulted in three previous years wouldn't be eligible for this program. This program would be a state insurance plan to cover damage to one's property. Still, this is only limited to residential property. The goal is to aid those who need aid from like wind storms, floods, and other stuff. The more people opt into in insurance program, the cheaper it is.
Four, to make up lost revenue, raise the state portion of the sales tax. This obviously is for the exemptions thing I mentioned above.
In my state, 6.5 cents generates approximately $6.5 billion in revenue. I think I heard the state portion of property tax generates $4 billion in revenue. And the budget is like $26 billion, but not sure if that's for a two or one year period.
No I am not advocating a police state. All I said was to make it illegal, very illegal, to intentionally not pay sales tax when doing the transaction in order to save money. And by very illegal I mean long jail sentences and harsh fines.
Concerning property taxes for the levels below the state level, I can't say we should remove them as of now. All I can say is that states should remove their portion of property tax and make it up with other sources of revenue, with either an increase in sales tax (additionally make it progressive) or sin taxes. If we removed property taxes for counties or cities or school districts, we'd have huge issues of how they'd get the revenue they need.
I think we're pretty much done with this unless we can find a medium that will allow us to speak in real time.
There was a proposal of getting rid of property taxes in Washington State. Of course, it would have only been the state portion. But the revenue would have had to be made up another way, which would have been income tax. But I was trying to point out it's possible for any of the major three (income, property, and sales) to essentially be non-existant.
As for those not paying sales tax when they are suppose to, made it very illegal. So illegal if caught, it really wouldn't have been worth it. As for buying stuff over the Internet, let me put it this way. When someone buys something over the Internet, sales tax should (in my current opinion) be applicable to the physical location of where you bought it from.
If someone avoids paying sales tax, it's illegal. And it's harder to avoid than income tax.
And why would you want to get rid of all taxation? Cause getting rid of sales tax will essentially do that in some areas.
Wouldn't one solution be to give December and January off in the school year, and just have the days made up in Summer?
Also, what could be done is to increase the school day by an hour or so during the late-Spring, and try cutting the number of school days out.
If both of the above is done, couldn't that work?
That would be more complicated.
I live in pacific time, and I'd be okay if we went to permanent mountain time here, or in other words -7 GMT year-round.
As for the school issue, here's an idea. During certain times of the year when the daylight hours are short, you shrink the school day by an hour so each class is a bit shorter. You make up that time by extending class a bit longer during the spring and summer months.
Also, readjusting the school start time on a monthly basis so there's a couple hours of daylight before the first bell rings would be a good idea. It's more of a biological concern rather than a time-of-day concern.
Personally, I'd like year-round daylight savings time. No more hassle of springing forward or falling back.
As for the school issue, let me put it this way. Start schools no sooner than a couple hours after dawn, and readjust monthly. It shouldn't have to do with the clock. It should have to do with physical daylight breaking and how we biologically respond to it. Kids don't get enough sleep as they do today.
And while we're on this subject of "daylight", we really should consider moving the November general election a couple months earlier into the year. Cause logically, some places don't have daylight when it's time to vote.
I'll make my opinion short.
Either extend it so it's year-round or don't extend it at all. It will break computer software. Although most people could upgrade, some can't. It's too much of a hassle. People won't like memorizing new stuff either. Just make it year round. I believe California was considering this once.
Sorry, I don't understand. And about sales tax and income tax double taxation, I agree, hence why we should get rid of income tax. Cause the hidden cost of income tax causes even non-sales taxable items to be taxed.
This is a radical idea, and I have no idea if it has ever been done.
The artist would have it set up so he or she gets 10 cents from every sale of a given song. (No albums, keep songs sold separately.) Now, this is done by the artist with no middleman. It could be done over the Net. The person downloading the song would agree that if he or she decides to sell a digital copy of the song, that he or she must give 10 cents per sold to the artist. This would be an anti-incentive to give the song away for free. Perhaps in the music-video or song there'd be a disclaimer it would be on the honour of the buyer to do the right thing.
I said: I could argue why I should have to pay annual taxes on property I bought no matter what my income is?
You said: I'm not sure what you mean by this.
My reply: The annual taxes on owned property don't factor in if one has an income or not. Someone could own a cheap home paying like $2-3k per year in property taxes, but if that person happens to lose his or her job, after a few years the government is going to take it away and sell it.
-
With property tax, there is no safeguard against losing one's income. With sales tax, obviously if you have no income, you have no tax worries. As for income tax, that's an entirely different subject cause it creates a mess in the system I won't go into.
If we don't fix the problems and have a fresh race among all the candidates eligible, then this will drag on and on for the four year duration.
At the very least, we should have another election this November, but it shouldn't be a run-off. It should be among all the candidates eligible last time, otherwise it's unfair cause it's changing the rules. If we want a run-off between the top two, then we'd have to hold a primary and have those two go on, or in other words, two more elections. I stick by what I say. I hope someone can back me up.
They need to stand up to people threatening to sue. And as for the legal expenses, chances are if they person-being-sued were to ask for help from netizens, they'd receive it.
I could argue why I should have to pay annual taxes on property I bought no matter what my income is?
At least there's no (state) income tax where I am.
Sales tax makes the most sense. You are using government currency in the first place. One way of looking at it is, "It's their money and it's kind of like a fee to use it."
Unusued property would best be sold.
With property taxes, one idea would be to exempt the median value of the residential property from being taxed. If the median house value is let's say a cheap $250k, then only tax the excess of that value.
This will probably be the last I speak on this subject (unless we can find something more in real time to discuss.)