Monday, August 22, 2011

If I Was President... (completely disregarding the way politics actually works)

I had some good ideas over the weekend, and I thought I'd pass them along to whoever is listening out there. Hopefully, someone will listen and together we can solve all of our countries problems PDQ! So, here goes...

1) Solving the Immigration/Afghanistan/Economic Problems In One Fell Swoop - First, you grant amnesty to all of the illegal immigrants in this country. Deadline: April 1st, 2012. All illegals in this nation have to apply with weight granted to those who have been here the longest (wait for it...) In addition to place of birth, etc, we collect information on how they've been surviving here in this country (I.E. Who's been paying them and keeping them employed). On April 2nd, we close the borders. Anyone caught sneaking into the United States after that will be dealt with thusly - they will be sent to a detention camp, they will be treated nicely, then they will be loaded on to a plane and flown to Afghanistan. Not to fight, mind you, but just to be deported. Since Afghanistan doesn't share a border with the US, they will not return to this country. AND, as a bonus, an influx of illegal immigrants into Afghanistan will likely overwhelm the country and drive the Taliban out as that country implodes from all the extra mouths to feed. End of war. Two problems solved.

On May 1st, the IRS will be handed all of the information collected from the formerly illegal immigrants and asked to collect back taxes from not only the new citizens, but also from all the people that employed them. Fines for late fees, unfiled tax forms, and lying on official paperwork will be assessed, but jail time will not be required. That should fill our coffers and also replenish all the money we spent on 50 million non-tax paying freeloaders. Two more problems solved.

2) Dealing with my Republican Counterparts and Compromising On Fiscal Philosophy - I don't agree with the Republicans that rich people shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes because they need that money to create jobs, but I'm willing to compromise a solution.

First, we set the new tax standards on all corporations to a REALLY high percentage (like say close to 50%). Then, and this is the important part, we allow for the taxes to be lowered permanently based upon the current US jobless rate. We tie the lower amount to an attainable goal (say 5% jobless rate) and so long as the jobless rate remains that amount, the corporate taxes shall be at their lowest rate. Incentive: Create Jobs to Get Good Tax Rates. And if they try to just pocket the money, or ship jobs overseas, the tax rate soars and the government then has the funds to make sure the safety nets remain funded. Two More Problems Solved.

3) It's time we abolish WHOM from the English language. Nobody can darn well remember whether its whom or who that they're supposed to say. And really, in what other context is whom even a word? Its like someone added that letter M just to confuse people, or, dare I say it, its a conspiracy amongst English Teachers to keep their jobs!

(As an addendum... Obama shouldn't receive any credit for Libya if Democrats aren't also going to hand Bush credit for Iraq. In both cases, the President got us involved in a conflict that we really didn't need to be involved in and in both cases neither President really did anything substantial to bring about the end of the conflict. Kudos to Obama for at least keeping our ground troops out of the fight.)

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Define "fair share," if you would. Today, almost half the country pays nothing, meaning the other half is supporting everyone. And like most of the "fair share" types, you refuse to acknowledge the hidden costs of running a business and the money sucked up (and out) of the economy by indirect levies on productivity. Right now, less than 30 cents of every dollar I earn during my 75 hour weeks sees the inside of my wallet. And my income tax form only shows an AGI substantially less than the magic "250K Morality" level which, as far as I can tell was pulled out of someone's metanarrative fanny.

I wish people could spend a few months doing what I do: worrying about my employees and their families and making sure every time I owe in taxes gets paid, only to see the fruits of my labors sucked away by the sponges of this society. Maybe then, all this "fairness" talk would dry up.

Will Robison said...

Okay, for starters, I will define a fair share thusly... if the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, then the system is out of whack. So a fair share would be any share that evens out the playing field a little.

In all likelihood, that doesn't include you. In fact, from the sound of it, you could probably stand to pay less taxes. But in order for that to happen, someone else needs to pay more. Now if the poor people are already getting poorer, why would you try to get more taxes out of them? You can't get blood from a stone. So, you have two options, either create jobs for them that allow them to pay more taxes or else go after the people who have the money in the first place - and I'm not talking about some 250K household or employer. I'm talking about the people with the REAL wealth. Clearly if the economy is in such doldrums and the number of billionaires continues to rise, there is something wrong with the system.

In general, economics is a closed system. So if money disappears from one area, it usually appears somewhere else. If most of the world is poor, then real wealth is being held in the hands of the few. That's not economic justice - its economic tyranny. We've replaced Feudal Lords with Corporations Too Big To Fail. All I'm suggesting is that if keeping their taxes low is supposed to create more jobs, then lets tie our unemployment rate to their tax levels. We will quickly see whether there is any truth in the matter.

Will Robison said...

P.S. I've really been trying to stay out of politics for a long while now... but I really miss these opportunities to discuss matters of substance - even if we're coming at them from different perspectives.

Anonymous said...

Give me a number, so that I can tell precisely when I no longer am moral in such a universe. What's the Danegeld, Will? What amount to I have to pony up to be left alone. Is the 70% I pay now, not good enough? Tell me. You're voting yourself access to my wallet and my family's income. What's it gonna take?

Oh, yeah, and how much are you going to contribute? What's fair?

Will Robison said...

First of all, I'm not voting access to your wallet. That vote was taken in this country back in the 20's.

What is a fair amount? I'll ask you the same question? If that amount is less than what you pay now, fine. But we need to bring everyone UP to that standard that is there now - and that includes most corporations. A flat tax would be simple, but I'm not naive enough to suggest one. But there has to be a tax rate at which we can all agree upon that allows are country to pay its bills, keep its citizens employed, and, at least, make an effort to help those less fortunate. We're obviously not at that rate right now. Not even close. But, again, that doesn't mean you're not paying your fair share and it doesn't mean that I'm not paying my fair share. What it means is that SOMEONE is not paying their fair share and we need to get that money from them and put it to good use for the benefit of all.

Just by the mere fact that 50% of the people in this nation don't pay taxes at all suggests to me that either the poverty level is WAY too high, or else there are too many people not paying their fair share. Perhaps if those people were to pay taxes, your burden wouldn't be nearly so great.

Will Robison said...

Oh, and P.S. I agree with you about the $250K level. Really have no idea where that came from. By those standards, almost everyone in the Bay Area is rich by the mere fact that they live here.

Anonymous said...

Fair is the same for everyone. How about 15% for everybody. No deductions.

That's my definition.

The fact of the matter is I make significantly less than the magic 250K morality level and I pay 70%.

Who pays more? What's the rate?

And the canard about "the country voted" is B.S. It's really easy to vote for other people to pay the bills. That's not a republic. That's tyranny of those for whom covetousness is a virtue.