I try to be fair in my dealings with others and at least in theory fairness should not be subject to interpretation. However, throughout my life I have learned that is not always the case; and though we may ask for fairness and/or equality, what we actually want is accommodation.
Let's look at taxes, the federal budget and the deficit.
The latest budget submitted by Obama to congress shows a requested expenditure of 3.8 trillion dollars (that is $3,800,000,000,000). Per the latest information I was able to find, there are 225.7 million Americans 18 years of age or older (225,700,000).
That means that if every American age 18 or older paid $16,836.51 that budget could be balanced. (currently it is estimated that there will be over a trillion dollar deficit)
So to be "fair", all Americans would pay the same amount of taxes and if we made the bogey $16,836.51, the budget could be balanced.
But here is where it gets tricky. Some Americans will not make that much money next year. Others may make more, but have living expenses that will consume most of what they make or at least enough that they could not afford to pay that much in taxes.
So is "fairness" or "equality" what we want here? I don't think either the far left or the far right (nor anyone in the middle) is asking for that (at least not that I have heard).
Instead, I hear some people saying that anyone that makes more money then them should have their tax rates increased and I hear others saying that those who are paying less taxes than they are should have their taxes increased. Both say doing so would make things more "fair". Both cannot be right.
It could be perceived that to be "fair" everyone would pay the same percentage of their income in the form of a tax, regardless of how much they earned or how they earned it. But that would mean that people who didn't earn any money wouldn't pay any taxes and that would not be "fair". So it stands to reason that it would not be possible to create a tax system that would be completely "fair".
Where then do we draw the line? Anyone making more money than me should pay whatever taxes it would require to balance the budget and anyone making as much or less than me should have their taxes frozen or reduced? Clearly, that would not be fair.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Where I stand - on security versus freedom
Security - precautions taken to guard against crime, attack, sabotage, espionage, etc.
Freedom - the power to determine action without restraint.
The two are actually opposites. For example, I am free to go for a bike ride almost anytime that I'd like. But I have to get my bike out of the garage first. I keep it in the garage for security, so that it won't get stolen. But that step of security limits my freedom to a certain extent.
All steps taken to ensure security also limit freedom.
Total freedom would be a complete lack of security and total security would be a complete lack of freedom.
I therefore believe that there must be a balance between the two, having neither total freedom nor total security. However, I feel that it is better to favor freedom of security.
The TSA is supposed to keep us safe when we travel by air. They are taking measures to provide security that at the same time take away freedom. The reality is that at least 95% (maybe even 99.9%) of those who fly are law abiding citizens that have no intentions of hijacking an airplane or doing any harm to any of their fellow passengers. Yet 100% of passengers are subject to searches.
The reason for this is because they cannot tell if a passenger has any intentions of doing harm or not.
While I feel that some measures have gone further than they need to and I'd like to see policies changed to be closer to what they were prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, I do understand that some level of security is needed for such travel.
Adding cameras on every street corner and drones in the sky to keep an eye on everything would certainly increase the security within our country. But I feel that it would come at too high a cost and oppose any such measure. Freedom should not be infringed upon so brazenly. When it is to be infringed upon, it should only be done with the utmost care and consideration and needs to be done in a manner that does not violate the constitution.
This country was founded based on freedom, not based on security. Though it would be foolish of us to do away with all measures of security, it is my belief that there are some measures that could be done away with. We do not need to create a new law every time somebody finds a new method to harm another human being. (physically or otherwise) When it comes to laws of the land, less is more and we should consider that when casting our ballots.
Freedom - the power to determine action without restraint.
The two are actually opposites. For example, I am free to go for a bike ride almost anytime that I'd like. But I have to get my bike out of the garage first. I keep it in the garage for security, so that it won't get stolen. But that step of security limits my freedom to a certain extent.
All steps taken to ensure security also limit freedom.
Total freedom would be a complete lack of security and total security would be a complete lack of freedom.
I therefore believe that there must be a balance between the two, having neither total freedom nor total security. However, I feel that it is better to favor freedom of security.
The TSA is supposed to keep us safe when we travel by air. They are taking measures to provide security that at the same time take away freedom. The reality is that at least 95% (maybe even 99.9%) of those who fly are law abiding citizens that have no intentions of hijacking an airplane or doing any harm to any of their fellow passengers. Yet 100% of passengers are subject to searches.
The reason for this is because they cannot tell if a passenger has any intentions of doing harm or not.
While I feel that some measures have gone further than they need to and I'd like to see policies changed to be closer to what they were prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, I do understand that some level of security is needed for such travel.
Adding cameras on every street corner and drones in the sky to keep an eye on everything would certainly increase the security within our country. But I feel that it would come at too high a cost and oppose any such measure. Freedom should not be infringed upon so brazenly. When it is to be infringed upon, it should only be done with the utmost care and consideration and needs to be done in a manner that does not violate the constitution.
This country was founded based on freedom, not based on security. Though it would be foolish of us to do away with all measures of security, it is my belief that there are some measures that could be done away with. We do not need to create a new law every time somebody finds a new method to harm another human being. (physically or otherwise) When it comes to laws of the land, less is more and we should consider that when casting our ballots.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Where I stand - on raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans
Disclaimer: I am using simple figures for the purposes of demonstrating the differences between investing in a business versus in a money market account. Actual tax rates may vary and returns are not guaranteed.
I often run across people that look at tax rates alone and state they feel it is unfair that wealthier people pay a lower tax rate (though higher dollar amounts) than they do. While I understand the feeling, I can't help but think they are not looking at the big picture. I am one of the lucky middle class that gets to a pay a high percentage in taxes. It may seem in my best interest to support raising tax rates on anybody that makes more money than I do, but I do not support the position and I'd like to explain why by offering the following scenarios:
Scenario 1 - Someone with one million dollars puts that money into a money market account that gives them an annual return of 5%, for a profit of fifty thousand dollars. That amount is taxed at a rate of 15%, for a total of $7,500 that gets sent to the government and $42,500 going back to the investor.
Scenario 2 - Same situation as above, but the tax rate has been increased to 20%. Now $10,000 gets paid in taxes with $40,000 going back to the investor.
In this instance, we see that raising the tax rate on wealthy Americans would result in more money being generated for the government.
Scenario 3 - Instead of using a money market account, that same person uses their million dollars to start a business and hire ten people. Half of the money is spent on equipment, which has a 6% sales tax rate, for $30,000 in sales tax captured by the government. Each employee gets paid fifty thousand dollars and pays taxes on their earnings at a rate of 20%. Each of the ten employees ends up paying $10,000 to the government, for a total of $100,000 dollars to Uncle Sam from the employees. The venture succeeds and the investor recovers their initial investment, plus a profit at a rate of 10%, for a total profit of $100,000. That profit is taxed at 15%, for a total of $15,000 going to the government and $85,000 going back to the investor. Combined taxes from the investor, sales tax and the employees of $145,000 paid to the government as a result of the new business.
The first scenario is clearly not ideal for the treasury, as it results in only $7,500 being brought in. Raising the tax rate to increase that amount seems ideal to the short-sighted person. However, we can see that the third scenario results in quite a bit more money being sent to the treasury.
In order to get that third scenario, investors much be encouraged to take risks and start new businesses versus opting for safe harbors for their money.
This is the reason that some people are opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy. It isn't because they want to allow the wealthy to keep more of the money that they make, it is because they want to encourage the wealthy to take those risks. If someone with one million dollars will end up with a net increase that is roughly the same by either taking on risks or by playing it safe, they will play it safe.
We need wealthy people to invest and take on risk to help grow the economy and create jobs.
I often run across people that look at tax rates alone and state they feel it is unfair that wealthier people pay a lower tax rate (though higher dollar amounts) than they do. While I understand the feeling, I can't help but think they are not looking at the big picture. I am one of the lucky middle class that gets to a pay a high percentage in taxes. It may seem in my best interest to support raising tax rates on anybody that makes more money than I do, but I do not support the position and I'd like to explain why by offering the following scenarios:
Scenario 1 - Someone with one million dollars puts that money into a money market account that gives them an annual return of 5%, for a profit of fifty thousand dollars. That amount is taxed at a rate of 15%, for a total of $7,500 that gets sent to the government and $42,500 going back to the investor.
Scenario 2 - Same situation as above, but the tax rate has been increased to 20%. Now $10,000 gets paid in taxes with $40,000 going back to the investor.
In this instance, we see that raising the tax rate on wealthy Americans would result in more money being generated for the government.
Scenario 3 - Instead of using a money market account, that same person uses their million dollars to start a business and hire ten people. Half of the money is spent on equipment, which has a 6% sales tax rate, for $30,000 in sales tax captured by the government. Each employee gets paid fifty thousand dollars and pays taxes on their earnings at a rate of 20%. Each of the ten employees ends up paying $10,000 to the government, for a total of $100,000 dollars to Uncle Sam from the employees. The venture succeeds and the investor recovers their initial investment, plus a profit at a rate of 10%, for a total profit of $100,000. That profit is taxed at 15%, for a total of $15,000 going to the government and $85,000 going back to the investor. Combined taxes from the investor, sales tax and the employees of $145,000 paid to the government as a result of the new business.
The first scenario is clearly not ideal for the treasury, as it results in only $7,500 being brought in. Raising the tax rate to increase that amount seems ideal to the short-sighted person. However, we can see that the third scenario results in quite a bit more money being sent to the treasury.
In order to get that third scenario, investors much be encouraged to take risks and start new businesses versus opting for safe harbors for their money.
This is the reason that some people are opposed to raising taxes on the wealthy. It isn't because they want to allow the wealthy to keep more of the money that they make, it is because they want to encourage the wealthy to take those risks. If someone with one million dollars will end up with a net increase that is roughly the same by either taking on risks or by playing it safe, they will play it safe.
We need wealthy people to invest and take on risk to help grow the economy and create jobs.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Where I stand - on earmarks
I am against them.
I think that earmarks are both part of the massive spending problem that we have as well as a gross misuse of power. I find it very ironic that so many people say that do not approve of the job congress is doing, and yet keep voting back the same people. It's like everybody is pleased with their own representatives and displeased with others. What that suggests to me is that many people feel that earmarks in general are bad, but as long as they benefit me they are okay.
An earmark to set aside money to buy a copy of my book for every school in the country would beyond a doubt benefit me. But I would have to oppose such an earmark because it would still be an earmark. We all need to lead by example, especially in this regard.
It is said that charity starts at home; Responsibility should as well.
I think that earmarks are both part of the massive spending problem that we have as well as a gross misuse of power. I find it very ironic that so many people say that do not approve of the job congress is doing, and yet keep voting back the same people. It's like everybody is pleased with their own representatives and displeased with others. What that suggests to me is that many people feel that earmarks in general are bad, but as long as they benefit me they are okay.
An earmark to set aside money to buy a copy of my book for every school in the country would beyond a doubt benefit me. But I would have to oppose such an earmark because it would still be an earmark. We all need to lead by example, especially in this regard.
It is said that charity starts at home; Responsibility should as well.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Where I stand - on immigration
I don't think a fence should be built along the border. I believe that people should come to the country legally, but that we should make it far easier for people to do so. People that just want to come here and work for a few months and then go back home should have an easy way to do that legally and not have to sneak in.
There are those that want to come here and stay. For them, I think it would be in their best interest to learn the language of the land, but I don't think it should be required by law that they do so.
Understanding the needs and desires of any that wish to come to this great country is the first thing we should do. Perhaps if we understood one another better, we would be more compassionate and less divisive.
There are those that want to come here and stay. For them, I think it would be in their best interest to learn the language of the land, but I don't think it should be required by law that they do so.
Understanding the needs and desires of any that wish to come to this great country is the first thing we should do. Perhaps if we understood one another better, we would be more compassionate and less divisive.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Where I stand - on term limits
I believe there should be term limits for every position.
Presidents are now limited to two terms and that is a very good thing.
Senators I believe should also be limited to two terms (giving them 12 years).
Now, to combat the "lame duck" problem, any elected official in their last term must be easier to replace than they would be otherwise. We need to keep our elected officials honest and working hard for our best interests, not for their own.
Presidents are now limited to two terms and that is a very good thing.
Senators I believe should also be limited to two terms (giving them 12 years).
Now, to combat the "lame duck" problem, any elected official in their last term must be easier to replace than they would be otherwise. We need to keep our elected officials honest and working hard for our best interests, not for their own.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Where I stand - on welfare
Welfare is a wonderful thing. It is Christianity at its best, or humanity at its best for anyone that doesn't believe in Christ. But religious views aside; in my opinion, there can be no better way to spend one's time or money than in serving your fellow man.
That said, the government couldn't have gotten their welfare program more wrong if they'd tried. Instead of offering a hand up, they offer a hand out; a crutch instead of a shovel or a hammer.
Too many people have become dependent on the government welfare system and intentionally keep their incomes low so as to not be removed from various welfare programs.
This is not to say that anybody who is on government welfare fits this description. Clearly, that couldn't possibly be true. But those who use it for its intended purpose rather than abuse it would benefit just as much from locally run organizations with better controls over who receives aid, of what nature and for what period of time.
The federal government needs to get out of the welfare industry and allow states, counties and cities to run such programs based on the needs of their specific areas and with the best interests of the individuals at heart.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. If he is unable to fish, find something he can do and teach him to do that. Everyone can contribute to society and will be happier if they do.
I have seen efficient charitable organizations and programs first hand, they should be commended for what they do and how well they do it. The federal government could learn a lot from them.
That said, the government couldn't have gotten their welfare program more wrong if they'd tried. Instead of offering a hand up, they offer a hand out; a crutch instead of a shovel or a hammer.
Too many people have become dependent on the government welfare system and intentionally keep their incomes low so as to not be removed from various welfare programs.
This is not to say that anybody who is on government welfare fits this description. Clearly, that couldn't possibly be true. But those who use it for its intended purpose rather than abuse it would benefit just as much from locally run organizations with better controls over who receives aid, of what nature and for what period of time.
The federal government needs to get out of the welfare industry and allow states, counties and cities to run such programs based on the needs of their specific areas and with the best interests of the individuals at heart.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. If he is unable to fish, find something he can do and teach him to do that. Everyone can contribute to society and will be happier if they do.
I have seen efficient charitable organizations and programs first hand, they should be commended for what they do and how well they do it. The federal government could learn a lot from them.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Where I stand - on deciding for whom to vote
Though it may often seem the coin flip technique is as good as anything else; and that one voice out of millions can't make a difference, I believe in making the best choice possible.
That choice is not based on the name of the candidate or party to which they belong.
Nor does it have to be somebody who has never made a mistake or has exactly the same viewpoints as you on every issue.
It has to be the person that wants to take the (country, county, city, state, etc) in a direction you believe in, has the capability to do so, and has the work ethic to give it the time it deserves. (Capability is a mix of skill, experience and desire)
Those who cannot compromise must live alone.
Those who never change their viewpoints on anything may be too stubborn to learn to compromise.
Those who constantly change their viewpoints may be too easily swayed by peer pressure.
But those who do not listen to their constituents are not fit for office. We elect people to represent us, not to direct us.
So, all of this said, who is the best man to be our next president? The answer is simple. Steve Rogers; Captain America. But since his name isn't in the hat, I will look for those who show similar leadership, selflessness, humility and valor. IMO, the perfect candidate is not running. But when I cast my vote, it will be for the best choice that I have at that time. Even if that ends up being somebody I voted against previously. I do not see this as picking between the lesser of two evils. I see it as my duty as a citizen of the United States of America.
Get out there and vote.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Where I stand - on the separation of church and state
I believe in the separation of church and state and believe that means the freedom "of" religion versus the freedom "from" religion.
The government should not dictate the religious beliefs of the people. Nor should they ban religious beliefs, practices or services. Prayer is my right and the government has no more right to prevent me from praying than they have to force others to pray.
In general, I feel my personal religious beliefs are irrelevant when discussing my political views. But in this situation, both my religious and political views can be explained by the 11th article of faith from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
The only time the government should get involved in religion is when people are being put in harm's way. In those cases, it is the job of the government to protect those that are unable to protect themselves.
The government should not dictate the religious beliefs of the people. Nor should they ban religious beliefs, practices or services. Prayer is my right and the government has no more right to prevent me from praying than they have to force others to pray.
In general, I feel my personal religious beliefs are irrelevant when discussing my political views. But in this situation, both my religious and political views can be explained by the 11th article of faith from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
The only time the government should get involved in religion is when people are being put in harm's way. In those cases, it is the job of the government to protect those that are unable to protect themselves.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Where I stand - on taxes
I don't like paying taxes, or at least not as much as it seems I have to pay (income - both federal and state, social security, medicare, property tax, vehicle registration, sales tax, etc); but at the same time I believe our government needs to have money in order to function and we must have a government.
I believe that everyone should pay taxes, even though some will pay more than others. Nobody should get more money in a "tax refund" than they actually paid in taxes that year (though some may end up getting most of what they paid refunded depending on their circumstances).
Welfare and tax refunds should be kept separate and I will discuss welfare separately.
I don't know enough about the people that start business to know if they would stop starting business if their tax rates were increased, so I can't speculate on that. I do know that as a small business owner, I enjoy being able to give others work and pay them for the work they do. Profit from the company often goes back into the company and if my tax rate were increased, I would have less money that I could put back into my company.
I feel a flat tax rate would be the most fair, but baring that, we need to cut a few hundred thousand lines of text out of our current tax code. In programming, we have a saying called "KISS". Which stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid". I believe the same applies to tax law.
I believe that everyone should pay taxes, even though some will pay more than others. Nobody should get more money in a "tax refund" than they actually paid in taxes that year (though some may end up getting most of what they paid refunded depending on their circumstances).
Welfare and tax refunds should be kept separate and I will discuss welfare separately.
I don't know enough about the people that start business to know if they would stop starting business if their tax rates were increased, so I can't speculate on that. I do know that as a small business owner, I enjoy being able to give others work and pay them for the work they do. Profit from the company often goes back into the company and if my tax rate were increased, I would have less money that I could put back into my company.
I feel a flat tax rate would be the most fair, but baring that, we need to cut a few hundred thousand lines of text out of our current tax code. In programming, we have a saying called "KISS". Which stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid". I believe the same applies to tax law.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Where I stand - on gun control
In general I am opposed.
I believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns, as long as the ownership of those firearms does not impose undue risk to society. This means that a loaded shotgun should not be placed in the corner of a home where the mother offers daycare services.
Open carry is legal in my state, but that doesn't mean somebody should walk down the street hefting an AK47 and a pump-action shotgun. That kind of behavior can cause people alarm.
Criminals will find a way to get firearms even if they are outlawed and firearms in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens do not worry me.
That said, if somebody else is in favor of some form of gun control, I cannot fault them for it without first knowing all of the factors behind their decision.
I believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns, as long as the ownership of those firearms does not impose undue risk to society. This means that a loaded shotgun should not be placed in the corner of a home where the mother offers daycare services.
Open carry is legal in my state, but that doesn't mean somebody should walk down the street hefting an AK47 and a pump-action shotgun. That kind of behavior can cause people alarm.
Criminals will find a way to get firearms even if they are outlawed and firearms in the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens do not worry me.
That said, if somebody else is in favor of some form of gun control, I cannot fault them for it without first knowing all of the factors behind their decision.
Where I stand
I don't know if my actions will inspire anyone else, but I personally wish that politicians would make it very clear where they stand on issues. This wouldn't mean they are incapable of compromise, but I tire of rambling instead of answering the question.
For that reason, I am going to start posting my own views on various topics and issues. Comments and even debate are welcome, I only ask that everyone be civil as some of my opinions could be polarizing. Also, please note that if my views differ from your own, that doesn't mean I think any less of you. All views are valid.
Also, if you'd like to know where I stand on a particular issue, let me know and I'll work it into my postings.
For that reason, I am going to start posting my own views on various topics and issues. Comments and even debate are welcome, I only ask that everyone be civil as some of my opinions could be polarizing. Also, please note that if my views differ from your own, that doesn't mean I think any less of you. All views are valid.
Also, if you'd like to know where I stand on a particular issue, let me know and I'll work it into my postings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
