Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Fair Tax?

It would seem that the only truly fair tax would be a flat tax without any deductions. Then we're all paying the same amount and no one can whine about unfair treatment.
But does it make any sense that whose for whom our capitalist system has profited the most should pay the least? Doesn't it stand to reason that they owe the country at least an equal share, if not more, for the success our system has afforded them?

Now, it is important to note that most government programs derived from tax dollars benefit those who have the least. Thus, we already live in a semi-socialist economy designed to help those who struggle.

It is equally important to note that equal hard work is not always rewarded by equal good pay. The wealthiest people in America are not necessarily any harder-working or better citizens than the poorest. They just work different types of jobs.

After most corporations take their deductions, they pay hardly any tax at all. A recent Government Accountability Office study stated that about two-thirds of U.S. companies and foreign firms doing business in this country paid no federal income taxes from 1998 to 2005. Many of the nonpayers were small or new companies that probably made no money. But the report said that about a quarter of large corporations - ones that had more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts - paid no taxes. In 2005, for instance, 3,565 large U.S. companies and 998 large foreign-owned companies operating here did not pay any income taxes.
So what is the answer? Obama's ideas to give a break to the lower 95% or McCain's ideas to give a tax break to the upper 5%? Both have merits and the answer is probably somewhere in between.

My feeling of our limited choices in this election are as follows:

1) I believe Obama has a real chance at improving our relations with the rest of the world and has already shown a remarkable ability to motivate people toward being engaged in our political process. One of the biggest problems we have is a lack of involvement. Being opinionated in comments (like this one) is not participation in the system, only barking at the surface. Obama, whether for or aginst him, makes people want to be involved. A Goverment is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned. Governement corruption can only exist by virtue of the inaction of the constituency.

2) McCain stands a fairly high chance of dying in office and Palin doesn't seem qualified to lead. She also comes across as a nasty and spiteful person who is generally uninformed about the issues and the history of politics in America... at least she is when she is without flash cards. She may have a bright future in politics but this is simply too early for her. If McCain wanted a qualified woman he could have chosen Olympia Snowe or Kae Baily Hutchinson or any of a myriad of other well-qualified female politicians.

3) One's personal religious ideologies should NOT be written into the Constitution, something the right has been threatening to do so for years, claming a morailty war in America. Any judge that would enact a law of the land based on a religious principle is an activist judge. I do not infringe on the rights and lives of others and am rewarded by being able to make my own choices. That's the greatness of America. We do not exclude. We do not create a national religion, figuratively or literally. The Constitution is a sacred document used to grant freedom, not to take freedom away. Palin's ideals, oft-touted by the Republican agenda, represent the extreme right. McCain has been abiding the party line and I believe he would continue to do so as President.
The morality war isn't about religion, anyway.

I would argue that our morals are bankrupted by lack of comprehesive education (inluding sexual biology education) aimed at revealing our commonalities as people, as men and women, and as citizens in an increasingly global community, regardless of faith, color, sex, or preferences.
Morality is put at risk by the use of entertainment media as a replacement for involved parenting, the continual extension of the average work week and need for two-income family situations, CREDIT CARDS, and lack of dscipline and an overage of hubris that our coutry fosters, i.e., an undeserved sense of personal entitlement.

Entitlement problems can be seen in small doses, daily, when people loudly have private conversations on cell phones as if there isn't a world of other people around them, or phone while driving, or fail to use turn signals to inform the other drivers of their intent, or to drive over the speed limit and tailgate those who obey the traffic laws.

You see the personal entitlement when people fail to say a simple "Thank You" when rendered goods and services by baristas. You see personal entitlement issues when those same baristas don't even bother to say hello to the customers who keep them employed.
Morality is at risk when we teach our kids that it's better to have a new PS3 and big-screen TV today, on credit, than to save money and reward ourselves with such things once we can acually afford them.

Morality is at risk when we actively promote and endorse the reality television shows that profit from misery and create situations to hurt and divide people. All the networks air them, we all watch them, and networks get paid advertising dollars for our sick attention span.
Morality is at risk when we teach our children that a salty meal in a wrapper with a fun toy, on the go, is more desireable than something fresh from the earth that takes hard work and patience to grow.

And in our economy, morality is at risk when we teach our children that, if they are lucky and hard-working enough to get rich, it is better to horde their wealth than to use it to help the less-fortunate.

Personally, if I ever increase my income enough to make $250,000 per year, I won't be too worried about "getting by" on the $130,000 or so that I wiould be allowed to keep after taxes. That's still a lot of money... a lot more than I'm getting by on now. We don't need much to live happily.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

The Illusion of Control

Dear Friends,

By now you must all realize that Democrat and Republican are brand names. They are corporations, selling a product. The very fact that independent parties are virtually shut out of the election process, regardless of how well their values and ideals would represent We The People, should tell you that our country is owned, not made. The Debate Commission is, predictably, run by a combination of Democrats and Republicans.

The fact that G.W. Bush was allowed into office (and accepted the office) on a technicality instead of the true popular vote should tell you we have been hijacked. The fact that, in this modern age, the Electoral College system (in most cases) gives all of a state’s votes to one candidate, even if the actual vote comes out 49% to 51%, should tell you we have no real power here.

The fact that wealthy and influential “Superdelegates” have more say than the regular delegates should tell you our elections are bought and sold.

The only difference I see in this poly-monopoly election is that McCain would lead us in the direction of more oil-for-power and no-bid contracts for his buddies to harvest it and reap the profits. Obama has a vague chance of moving our power-hungry eyes toward the Earth’s vast supply of wind, water, and sun.

So between McCain, a member of the Ruling Class, and Obama, a superstar of the Hollywood Court, which puppet would We The Groundlings like to see? I’ll take the black guy who is more likeable to rest of the world. He will, at least, LOOK different, standing at the helm of hubris, than another rich white guy.