• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paying the fair share

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Another big vs small false contrast. Given fallable human nature, what should government do? How can it do it most efficiently?

Then fair comes in because in our country someone who sits on his fat butt and collects dividends can pay less than the poor sucker who works incredibly hard for a living. To me what is fair starts with everyone who has a certain income from any source should pay the same as a starting point.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
A $400/month universal basic income for all legal U.S. adult citizens (over age 18) and expansion of Medicare A into a universal Medicare A hospital insurance for all Americans (with $2,500 per insured deductible) totaling 1.8 trillion dollars of annual government spending in today's dollars could be implemented by way of eliminating Medicaid and food stamps $(600 billion dollars/yr. of savings), abolishing the U.S. department of education and Housing and Urban Development, $(130 billion dollars/yr. of savings), increasing Medicare part B annual deductible to $5,000 ( $110 billion dollars of savings/yr from current Medicare part B spending ) eliminating the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, ($63 billion dollars/yr. of savings), a 32 percent reduction in social security disability benefits ($50 billion dollars/yr. of savings ), a 60 percent reduction in U.S. foreign aid ($23 billion/yr. in savings), a 25 percent reduction in federal unemployment compensation benefits ($10 billion dollars/yr. in savings), a 50 percent reduction in subsidized crop insurance and conservation programs for farmers ($10/billion.yr in savings.)

So then, after the nearly trillion dollars of cost savings, we now have to fund the nearly $800 billion net cost of my proposed $400/month universal basic income benefit program and universal Medicare A hospital insurance coverage.

I propose the following tax hikes to generate the needed revenue to fund the nearly $800 billion net cost of my proposed $400/month universal basic income benefit program and universal Medicare A hospital insurance coverage.

Increasing the top marginal federal income tax rate from 37% to 43% along with increasing the second highest top marginal federal income tax rate from 35% to 38%, an increase of the corporate tax rate from 21% to 25% (These income tax hikes would currently generate an additional $300 billion/yr. of tax revenue), an additional 80 cent/gallon fuel excise tax, an additional 50 cent tobacco excise tax on each pack of cigarettes, a 50 percent increase of excise taxes on adult beverage alcohol content, a doubling of federal excise taxes on air travelers and national park visitors, (These excise tax hikes would currently generate an additional ca. $160 billion/yr of tax revenue) and the reduction of the exemption on the federal estate tax from $10 million to $5 million, (this would generate an additional ca. $40 billion/yr of tax revenue) , increasing the limit of annual income from $131k $200k subject to social security taxes , ( this would currently generate ca. $60 billion/yr. of additional revenue), and a new tax that'd be a modest 4 percent national retail sales tax on new vehicle purchases, (this would currently generate ca. $50 billion/yr. of additional revenue), a doubling of Medicare Part D premiums, (this would currently generate ca. ($25 billion/yr of tax revenue), and a $200/monthly premium for each person who'd buy into a public option Medicare Part B program (with $5,000 annual deductible per insured), Medicare Part B premiums paid at this level over current levels would currently generate ca. $35 billion/yr of additional spending revenues.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Government will always feel the need to be bigger.
So it should only be as big as we need it to be.
What you say is true but only because, in the current models of government, there are leaders in charge who want to expand their power. But, advanced models of government may chuck the concept of leadership. Businesses are experimenting with leaderless teams in limited decision-making roles, for example.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What you say is true but only because, in the current models of government, there are leaders in charge who want to expand their power. But, advanced models of government may chuck the concept of leadership. Businesses are experimenting with leaderless teams in limited decision-making roles, for example.
I wish them luck.
Businesses need wise dictatorship.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
I wouldn't worry about it too much. You live in the US, so the government will figure that all out for you. :D

In my opinion, taxes should be just high enough to ensure everybody in America has a subsistence living allowance and affordable health care insurance. ...I've proposed ca. $800 billion of additional U.S. government spending above our federal government current levels of annual spending in order to ensure a subsistence living allowance and affordable health care insurance for every American. I've proposed ca. $670 billion of additional tax revenue above current levels of annual tax revenue in order to fund a $400/monthly universal basic income benefit for all American citizens over age 18, and universal hospital insurance coverage for everybody who is a legal resident of the U.S.. ....:)
 
Last edited:

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Our educational system has not "failed". It needs improving, but failing to fund it will not do that. And neither will turning it over to private providers.

Each one of the 50 states and every local community can fund their public education system, the Federal government need not be involved with this.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Government will always feel the need to be bigger.
So it should only be as big as we need it to be.

My proposed elimination of HUD, U.S.D.E. and significant downsizing of other federal agencies would eliminate overall nearly 100,000 government jobs; that'd save taxpayers billions of dollars every year. ...:)
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I always wonder...

What is MY fair share?

I hear so many people saying that those of greater capacity need to pay their fair share but I always wonder what their own fair share should be or if they use every loop-hole available (or earned income credit which isn't earned) to get out of paying their fair share and just simply want every one else to pay for what was their own fair share.

thoughts?

Fair is subjective as we and by extent government change what fair means based on income.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Our educational system has not "failed". It needs improving, but failing to fund it will not do that. And neither will turning it over to private providers.

The US is one of the top 5 nations on funding per student and total. More money isn't going to solve the problem. I think people need to consider vouchers so those in failing schools can get out of the district trap
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Each one of the 50 states and every local community can fund their public education system, the Federal government need not be involved with this.
Free basic education is a right to all citizens. And it's a national priority requiring national oversight. The ability of individual communities to fund an effective educational system of their own is wildly varied. Which would inevitably result in wildly varies outcomes. And this is in no one's best interest. We need the poor child in rural Arkansas to get as good a basic education as the child in Long Island N.Y., because we have no way of knowing where the next great scientist, artist, philosopher, or social leader will be born, or what color and ethnic background he will be. It's in ALL our best interest to give all our children a good basic education, and the opportunity for more, if they are capable and interested.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The US is one of the top 5 nations on funding per student and total. More money isn't going to solve the problem. I think people need to consider vouchers so those in failing schools can get out of the district trap
The problem is corruption. The money being spent is not getting to the actual educational process. It's being swallowed up by bureaucratic political cronies and do-nothing middlemen. And the solution to this problem is not to further starve a system that is already starving because it's infected by parasites, but to find and eliminate those parasites. Everyone wants easy, extreme solutions. But real solutions are rarely easy, and won't respond well to knee-jerk extremism.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
The problem is corruption. The money being spent is not getting to the actual educational process.
It's being swallowed up by bureaucratic political cronies and do-nothing middlemen. And the solution to this problem is not to further starve a system that is already starving because it's infected by parasites, but to find and eliminate those parasites. Everyone wants easy, extreme solutions. But real solutions are rarely easy, and won't respond well to knee-jerk extremism.

I agree in part. Although for me your targets are linked with unions, Dems and school boards. I just happened to think vouchers are a possible solution as some groups are so entrenched that it would take a massive effort to offset.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I agree in part. Although for me your targets are linked with unions, Dems and school boards. I just happened to think vouchers are a possible solution as some groups are so entrenched that it would take a massive effort to offset.
Yeah, well, you drank the republican cool aid right down to the last drop. So ... of course. But if you want better schools you need better teachers, and if you want better teachers you're going to have to pay them better, so there's a bigger pool to choose from. And if you want more effective teaching, you're going to have to listen to what the teachers suggest; not the holy men, or the bean-counting administrators, or the lying politicians, the attention-grubbing news media, or angry, idiotic Joe down at the bar. Paying teachers better, and listening to and supporting them in their process would eliminate any union problems. While ignoring the holy men, politicians, the media, and Joe is just good sense over all.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Yeah, well, you drank the republican cool aid right down to the last drop. So ... of course.

Nope. This is from my own experience of educating myself in public school. Some teachers are glorified baby-sitters thus do not warrant the pay of teachers in HS. Also my experience of attending both private and public schools.

But if you want better schools you need better teachers, and if you want better teachers you're going to have to pay them better, so there's a bigger pool to choose from.

Again some teachers are glorified baby-sitters. So to me funding should be directed for increase pay for real teachers typical those in HS.

And if you want more effective teaching, you're going to have to listen to what the teachers suggest; not the holy men, or the bean-counting administrators, or the lying politicians, the attention-grubbing news media, or angry, idiotic Joe down at the bar.

Some teacher's opinions are worthless.

Paying teachers better, and listening to and supporting them in their process would eliminate any union problems.

No as that is part of the union issue.

While ignoring the holy men, politicians, the media, and Joe is just good sense over all.

I rather trust my experience.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Yeah, well, you drank the republican cool aid right down to the last drop. So ... of course. But if you want better schools you need better teachers, and if you want better teachers you're going to have to pay them better, so there's a bigger pool to choose from. And if you want more effective teaching, you're going to have to listen to what the teachers suggest; not the holy men, or the bean-counting administrators, or the lying politicians, the attention-grubbing news media, or angry, idiotic Joe down at the bar. Paying teachers better, and listening to and supporting them in their process would eliminate any union problems. While ignoring the holy men, politicians, the media, and Joe is just good sense over all.

My proposed $400/month Universal income benefit would increase everybody's annual income by $4,800. ...:)
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Free basic education is a right to all citizens. And it's a national priority requiring national oversight. The ability of individual communities to fund an effective educational system of their own is wildly varied. Which would inevitably result in wildly varies outcomes. And this is in no one's best interest. We need the poor child in rural Arkansas to get as good a basic education as the child in Long Island N.Y., because we have no way of knowing where the next great scientist, artist, philosopher, or social leader will be born, or what color and ethnic background he will be. It's in ALL our best interest to give all our children a good basic education, and the opportunity for more, if they are capable and interested.

The state of Arkansas as well as any other state is quite capable of providing resources for its public education system without any meddling from Washington bureaucrats.
 

Shadow Link

Active Member
You write of Big Government as though it's someone with a brain and a Machiavellian personality. Is that really how you think of it?

I think of governments as decision-making processes. Some are better than others, but overall they perform poorly.
No.

I think that the fundamental understanding of a healthy social order is not dependent upon "Government" but rather upon the constant changing influences of responsible and accountable individuals.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
No.

I think that the fundamental understanding of a healthy social order is not dependent upon "Government" but rather upon the constant changing influences of responsible and accountable individuals.
I didn't follow your point about "fundamental understanding" and "changing influences."

I see this as a simple matter: a society is a cooperative venture which must be managed well to succeed. That management is called "governing." The important question about governing is: How can it be done efficiently?
 
Last edited:
Top